Read Ebook: The Review Vol. 1 No. 11 November 1911 by Various National Prisoners Aid Association Publisher

Font size: 10 px 15 px 20 px 25 px 30 px 35 px

Background color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Text color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Apply/Save settings

Ebook has 104 lines and 13869 words, and 3 pages

VOLUME I, No. 11. NOVEMBER, 1911

THE REVIEW

TEN CENTS A COPY. ONE DOLLAR A YEAR

T. F. Carver, President. Wm. F. French, Vice President. O. F. Lewis, Secretary, Treasurer and Editor Review. Edward Fielding, Chairman Ex. Committee. F. Emory Lyon, Member Ex. Committee. W. G. McClaren, Member Ex. Committee. A. H. Votaw, Member Ex. Committee. E. A. Fredenhagen, Member Ex. Committee. Joseph P. Byers, Member Ex. Committee. R. B. McCord, Member Ex. Committee.

THE STATISTICS OF CRIME

BY EUGENE SMITH

PRESIDENT PRISON ASSOCIATION OF NEW YORK

In the deplorable and chaotic condition of the very sources from which all statistical matter must be drawn, it is hopeless to look for any improvement in our census statistics, unless a radical change can be effected in state administration. The records of the police, the courts, the prisons, can be made of statistical value only by the action of the state itself; and there is apparent but one method by which the state can act to this end.

There should be established in each state a permanent board or bureau of criminal statistics, whether as an independent body or as a department of the office of the attorney general or of the secretary of state. This bureau should be charged with the duty of prescribing the forms in which the records of all criminal courts, police boards and prisons shall be kept and specifying the items regarding which entries shall be made. The law creating the bureau should direct that the forms prescribed by it should be uniform as to all institutions of the same class to which they respectively apply and be binding upon all institutions within the state.

The bureau should issue general instructions governing the collection and verification of the facts to be stated in the record; it should also be its duty, and it should be vested with power, to inspect and supervise the records and to enforce compliance with its requirements. Such a bureau might secure a collection of reliable statistical matter, uniform in quality throughout the state. Indiana is now, it is believed, the only state in the Union where such a bureau exists.

Not the slightest reflection can be cast upon the federal census bureau; on the contrary, when consideration is taken of the fragmentary and chaotic state records with which the census bureau had to deal, the systematic and orderly results and the general deductions embraced in the census report of 1904 must be regarded as a signal scientific triumph.

One exceedingly common and popular error needs special mention; a marked increase in the number of convictions for crime indicates to the public mind an increase necessarily in the volume of crime committed. In fact, it may be owing to increased activity and efficiency on the part of the police and detective officers, to greater severity and thoroughness in the administration of the courts, to a change in the economic conditions of the community, to diminished care and skill on the part of offenders in escaping detection; indeed, there are many possible factors that may have combined to produce an unusual statistical result. A slight change in the laws or methods of procedure, may cause startling statistical fluctuations.

For example, in the year 1890, the number of convictions for drunkenness in Massachusetts was 25,582; two years later, the number had fallen to 8,634. An amazing diminution of drunkenness in Massachusetts--nearly 70%? Not at all; it was owing to a new statute passed in 1891, the effect of which was that only those arrested for the third time within a year were subject to conviction.

The congestion of population in cities and the progress of invention necessitates every year the enactment of numerous statutes and municipal ordinances making certain acts, that are harmful to the public, misdemeanors ; but these acts, committed in large part through ignorance or negligence, are not essentially of a criminal nature. Statistically, they swell the number of crimes committed, but most of them are not crimes in the meaning popularly attached to that word. These considerations suggest that all attempts to draw conclusions from, and to explain the significance of the rise or fall of the statistical barometer must be conducted with extreme caution.

An error into which speakers and writers upon crime are prone to fall is that of regarding the statistics of crime as a measure of the total volume of crime committed in the country, affording an answer to the vital question: Is crime increasing? There are two fundamental facts relating to crime that must never be forgotten. First, that criminal statistics are, and must necessarily always be, confined to those crimes that are known and are officially acted upon by the police or the courts. Secondly, that there is a large number of crimes that are committed secretly and are never divulged, the perpetrators of which are never detected, and crimes that never result in the apprehension of the offender.

Perhaps the highest value of criminal statistics consists in the light they may throw upon the practical effects produced by penal legislation, by judicial procedure and by the administration of police and detective officers. For example, within the past decade, radical changes in the administration of justice have been established in this country by laws relating to juvenile offenders, and by the extended use of the suspended sentence and probation. A question has arisen in many minds whether the severity of the penal law has not thus been unduly relaxed. It is a matter of supreme importance to know whether and how far, the tenderness of the modern law toward children serves to rescue them from a life of crime--to know whether the clemency of the law toward adults by suspension of sentence and probation promotes their rehabilitation, and to know to what class of offenders this clemency may properly be extended--to know whether these milder methods of treatment are affording adequate protection to the public or whether sterner measures of restraint and discipline may be made more effective in repressing crime.

These vital questions can receive final answer only by following the subsequent career of the offenders to whom these methods are applied and thus gaining data for statistical tabulation. In the same way, the virtue of the indeterminate sentence ought to be substantiated by the statistical test. Statistics can be made to show what class of crimes comes most frequently before the courts in a given community, and whether an increase in the severity of punishment tends to increase or diminish the number of convictions.

THE PAROLE SYSTEM IN CANADA

The control of this colony was not regulated by statute, but was left to the wisdom of the colonial governor. The necessity of raising crops for their sustenance, the construction of buildings, and the making of homes for the colonists, induced the governor greatly to modify the sentences of the well-disposed prisoners, that he might have a needed moral and possibly a physical support from them in his administration. He set many of them free, and gave them grants of land, and afterwards assigned to these men, thus free, other convict laborers who were being received from the mother country. Following this precedent it became the custom for the governors of different penal settlements to manage each according to his own ideas, and the custom developed into granting such liberties as have been included in the ticket of leave system.

The holder of the ticket of leave, which was granted to the convict who had satisfactorily fulfilled a certain period of his sentence in the cellular prisons then adopted in the penal settlements, would be granted the freedom of the colony during the remainder of his sentence, but he was placed under certain restrictions, such as being confined to certain districts unless he received a pass to go elsewhere, and also being obliged to present himself for inspection to the authorities monthly, quarterly or yearly, as provided for in his license, and being prohibited from carrying fire-arms or weapons of any kind, except under special permission. The ticket of leave was first legalized during the reign of George IV, between 1820 and 1830, and in 1834 it was regulated by a statute, which defined the minimum periods of sentence by which a ticket of leave could be gained. For example, it required a service of four years for a seven year sentence, six years for a sentence of eight, and fourteen years for a life sentence, in what was termed "assigned service or government employed." These periods could be increased by the slightest misconduct on the part of the prisoner.

Under this law a convict who had held a ticket of leave without having been guilty of misconduct, and who was recommended by responsible persons in the district where he resided, could have his application for a full pardon transferred by the governor of the colony for the consideration of the Crown, but Sir Robert Burke, in a report made by him in 1838, intimates that convicts were granted ticket of leave to some extent at the discretion of the home government upon application of influential persons in England. Under this system the convict on ticket of leave was entitled to his earnings. In case of misconduct, the employer could complain to the nearest magistrate, who could order the convict to be flogged, condemned to work on the roads, or in the chain gang. Any magistrate could order 150 lashes, until the year 1858, when the number was limited to 50. A convict, if ill-treated, might lay a complaint against his master, but for that purpose he must go before a bench of magistrates, the majority of whom were owners of convict labor and masters of assigned convict servants. Such abuses grew up under this system as to make life a living hell for the convicts.

In the year 1838 a committee of parliament condemned the system of transportation, with its attached evils, as "being unequal, without terrors to the criminal classes, corrupting both the criminal and colonists, and very expensive." They recommended the establishment of penitentiaries instead. It was then ordered that no convicts should be assigned for domestic service, and in the year 1840 transportation to Australia was stopped entirely.

Another advance was made in the year 1842, which was called the "probation system." It was founded on the idea of passing convicts through various stages of control and discipline, by which it was hoped to instill a more progressive system for their improvement. Probation gangs were established in Van Dieman's Land, through which all convicts for transportation were to pass. These gangs were scattered through the colony, and were employed on public works under the control of the government. A school master or a clergyman was to be attached to each gang. From the probation gang, the convict passed into a stage during which he might, with the consent of the governor, engage in private service for wages, but he was required to pay the government a part of the wages, which was retained as security, and forfeited if the convict was guilty of any misconduct. Next followed a ticket of leave with the same privileges, save that the freedom of the convict was greatly enlarged. The last stage was that of a conditional pardon. This probation system failed, as Sir Edmond Ducaine stated, for several reasons: 1st--that suitable means were not provided for insuring proper order or discipline in the probation gang; 2nd--that the officers of the gangs were characterized by insubordination and vices, unnatural crimes being proven to exist to a terrible extent; 3rd--that the demand for labor was found to be very insufficient to employ the ticket of leave portion of the men, so that idleness soon destroyed all the good that had been accomplished under the probation system. The difficulty may be summed up in one or two words--they did not get to the root of the matter as regards discipline and labor, and there was an entire absence of mental and moral training.

In the year 1846, Mr. Gladstone decided that all transportation of convicts to the outside colonies must be suspended, and in 1847 the present system of imprisonment was adopted, under which convicts must pass through the prisons before a conditional release will be granted. Under the present system of penal servitude in England, there are three distinct stages of operation. During the first, which generally lasts nine months, recently greatly reduced in number, the prisoner passes his whole time, except meetings and exercise, in his cell apart from all other prisoners, working at some employment, but always kept separate and alone. During the second stage he eats and sleeps in his cell, but works in association with other prisoners. During the third period he is conditionally released, but is kept under the surveillance of the police, reports at stated periods, and is returned to prison for any infraction of his licence. The system is altogether automatic in its operation, and as far as I can ascertain about one-half of the entire number released on ticket of leave, lapse into crime again.

The "Prevention of Crimes Act" passed in 1871 provides that any person convicted a second time of an indictable offence may be sentenced to be subject to the supervision of the police for seven years after the expiration of his sentence.

The system of conditional liberation was adopted by the king of Saxony, in 1862. In the same year it was adopted by the grand duchy of Oldenburg, by the Canton of Sargovie in Switzerland, in 1868; the kingdom of Servia, in 1869, the German Empire, in 1871, Denmark, in 1879; the Swiss Canton of Vaud, in 1875, also in the same year, the Kingdom of Croatia in Hungary, the Canton of Unter Walden, in 1878, the Netherlands, in 1881, the Empire of Japan, in 1882, the French Republic in 1885, and since these dates it has been adopted in Austria, Italy and Portugal. The system of parole, or conditional liberation, is also now in vogue in many of the United States.

The Canadian parole system, first adopted for the penitentiaries in the year 1899, and since extended to the jails and reformatories, differs from any system now in operation in the entire world, and will compare favorably with any of them. There is nothing automatic in the operation of this system, and it does not conflict with the remission earned in the penitentiaries, which applies to all prisoners whose conduct and industry merit consideration.

What, then, is the parole system? I do not like the general term "ticket of leave," which has been the outcome of many failures, and resulted in the abuse of many systems, for the term ticket of leave is one which handicaps the prisoner who carries this synonym of "jail bird" printed in large letters on his license, but the word parole, "my word of honor," is a much better term, and more within the true meaning of a conditional release.

It can be said, in view of the various methods adopted in many countries, that these systems all acknowledge the principle of conditional liberty to the citizen who has forfeited it by crime, and that a gradual restoration and rehabilitation is not only feasible, but is expedient to the higher and best interests of the state. It is a system which strengthens the weak, and fits them again for contact with society, and when they are sufficiently strong, restores them to full liberty and good citizenship. The parole system of Canada not only gives the released prisoner police supervision, which is an absolute necessity in keeping in touch with them, but it makes provision for a parole officer, as Sir Charles Fitzpatrick demonstrated to the house of parliament, as a "go-between" the police and the prisoner, giving the prisoner protection, sympathy and care in a time when he most needs a helping hand.

The parole system came in vogue in Canada under the late Honorable David Mills, then Minister of Justice, in the year 1899. He was followed by Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, who not only took a deep interest in the system, but he placed it on a well-organized plan of operation, and the present minister of justice, the Honorable A. B. Aylesworth, has been working out this organization with splendid success. The minister of justice occupies a unique position, having at his command the reports from the trial judges, the parole officer, the wardens and jailors of the institutions and the dominion police, for the investigation of complex cases. His position is a much stronger one than that of a "board of pardons," or any local system operated in other countries, and it would be a step backward to even consider an alteration of our Canadian system. The minister of justice considers every application for a parole on its merits, and free from local prejudice or influence.

It has also been demonstrated that the Canadian parole system is working harmoniously with the principles of law and order in every community in which it is in operation, and that it has never been governed by that mawkish sentimentality which would convert a penitentiary into a summer resort, with perfumed baths, carpets, paintings, or orchestras for the prisoners. The administration realizes that the inmates are criminals, sentenced to confinement on account of crime, and to convert a penitentiary into a place of recreation and amusement would be to pervert the purposes for which it was instituted. In our Canadian institutions, men are punished for criminal offences, and on this fact or basis only the mercy of a parole can be safely administered. One fact I desire to lay stress upon is that our convicts receive a wholesome, humane treatment which leads to the beneficial results of our parole system.

As to the results of the parole system since 1899 in Canada, the following facts are quoted:

THE MASSACHUSETTS PRISON ASSOCIATION

The Association was formed in 1899 to enlighten public opinion concerning the prevention and treatment of crime, to secure the improvement of penal legislation, and to aid released prisoners in living honorably. Until the Association was formed, there was no organization in the state to do the work of "enlightening public opinion concerning the prevention and treatment of crime." The literature of the Association has been distributed widely for educational purposes. Its annual appeal for Prison Sunday has met with a response from many churches, and a greatly improved public sentiment has been developed. During 1910 the Association printed and distributed 75,000 pages of printed matter. The public press and the lecture platform has been used also.

Three important changes have been made through the efforts of the Association, in the probation laws. Arrested persons who, after investigation by the probation officer, are found to be occasional offenders, are released from the station, by his direction, with a warning that a record has been made, and that another offense may be followed by punishment, 38,813 being so released in 1910. Since the time available before the opening of the court does not permit a full investigation of all cases, doubtful ones are sent to the court which has authority to release the occasional offender without arraignment. The offender suffers from public exposure in court, but is saved from the stigma of a trial and conviction; 25,295 were so released in 1910.

Commitment to prison formerly followed immediately after the imposition of a fine, if it was not paid on the spot. A new law, secured by the Association, authorizes the court to give a prisoner time to get his fine. He is placed under the supervision of a probation officer, to whom he pays the fine. The receipts from fines collected last year under the suspended sentence amounted to ,379.

In connection with the abolition or the establishment of correctional institutions, the Association has succeeded in bringing about the abolition of the South Boston house of correction, and the establishment of the Shirley state industrial school for boys, a reformatory on the farm school plan for boys between the ages of 15 and 18. Through the efforts of the Association probation officers have been appointed in the superior court. In 1906 the society played a prominent part in bringing about the treatment of juvenile offenders as delinquents rather than as criminals. Back in 1900 the Association advocated a bill, which was passed providing for a central probation bureau. Not until 1908, through another law, was the principle of this bill put into execution. The Association secured a law expediting criminal trials by giving the lower courts jurisdiction over a greater number of offenses.

Recently the society has secured the passage of a law requiring the state inspectors of health to make an annual inspection of police stations, lockups and houses of detention, and to make rules for such places, relative to the care and use of drinking cups, dishes, bedding and ventilation. The law requires that no such places shall be built, hereafter, until the plans have been approved by the state board. A supplementary law extended this provision to jails and houses of correction.

In the assisting of discharged prisoners the Association has often filled the place of next friend. In 1910 the Association gave relief to 335 different men. The receipts of the Association were in 1910 ,682, and the expenditures, ,678.

A NEW KIND OF PRISON

At the annual meeting of the American prison association at Omaha, Mr. W. C. Zimmerman, state architect of Illinois, presented to the careful scrutiny of most of the principal wardens in the United States a half-section model of the new cell house which is to be the unit of construction in the proposed Illinois state prison of which Mr. Zimmerman is the architect. In view of the novelty of the prison plan proposed by Mr. Zimmerman and in view furthermore of the general approval, often enthusiastic, which the wardens gave to the plan and the model, a brief description is submitted herewith to the readers of the Review.

At present the prevailing construction of cell blocks in the United States embodies the following features: the walls of the building; the corridor next the wall; the cell blocks, which are back to back, except for the so-called utility corridor which separate the rows of cells. In short, it is a cell block built within a building known as the cell house. It is obvious that the natural light for the cells must come through windows in the wall of the building.

European prison construction is the exact opposite, in that the cells are built on the "outside" principle, that is, up against the walls of the cell house. The corridor, therefore, is in the middle of the cell house and each cell has a room to itself with a barred window to the outside air.

The "inside" cell construction in the United States has been held to have several distinct advantages, for the utility corridor, containing the various pipes, wires, etc., is an economical form of construction. The cells on the "inside" are furthermore safer in that the cell door acts as a window and the prisoner in order to escape must first go through the cell door, then through the wall of the cell house and then over the wall of the prison grounds.

Prisons built on the "inside" plan are strongly criticised because of the limited amount of direct sunlight and direct fresh air that may be admitted to the cells. The importance of these two essentials of life is obvious. A further objection to the "inside" cell plan is that as the cells have no doors, the acts and the words of one prisoner can be readily heard or learned throughout a good part of the cell house. Supervision with either the "inside" or the "outside" plan is at present carried on through the patrolling of the corridors by a guard.

The plan evolved by Mr. Zimmerman for the cell house of the new Joliet prison seemingly overcomes the above objections in a most careful manner. It is proposed by Mr. Zimmerman to build circular shaped cell houses about 120 feet in diameter, placing the cells against the cell house wall and thus assuring direct light and air. Now comes the novelty. Instead of having an open front of steel bars, heavy glass will be fitted into the open space between these bars so as to make a completely closed room out of the cell. A full view, however, of this room is possible from a central point. This central point is a steel shaft in the center of the cell house, enclosing a circular stairway. The stairway will be as high as the highest tier of cells, and from a position half way up the circular stairway, which is completely sheathed with steel, the guard within the "conning tower" has a full view of each and every cell, at the mere turn of his head. The shaft will be arranged with narrow slots opposite the level of the eye so that it will be impossible for inmates to see the guard and impossible to know at what time they are under observation. The shaft will be bullet proof, which in case of possible mutiny assures absolute safety for the guard. An armed guard could undoubtedly from his secure position readily control a mob even though the mob be fully armed. Entrance to the shaft will be possible only through a tunnel which opens into the administration building outside the prison enclosure.

A number of these circular cell houses will be erected as indicated in the group plan here published. That this arrangement lends itself most readily to extension is evident.

Another novel feature is the possibility of classification of prisoners in different groups. Easily moving partitions will be erected as high as the upper tier of rooms and placed with sufficient frequency so that no prisoner can see from his cell into that of any other cell, an arrangement which does not interfere with the view of the guard in the "conning tower" into any room of the cell house.

Escape seems practically impossible, for the guard in the "conning tower" will have at his hand a complete system of levers, push buttons, etc., electrically controlled in such a way that at any time the locks of any or all of the tiers may be locked or unlocked and the lights in any or all of the cells may be dimmed or increased.

In order that all rooms may obtain direct sunlight the roof will be made largely of glass and the diameter of the cell house is sufficiently large to admit of the shining of the sun into the lowest tier of rooms facing the north. Most of the rooms will enjoy direct sunlight at some period of the day through the outside window.

The building of this prison in Illinois will be watched with great interest by all those in the United States interested in the construction of prisons and in the proper housing of the delinquent. The circular form of prison is not entirely new. In 1901 a circular prison was built in Haarlem, Holland, to accommodate about 400 inmates. The Haarlem prison, however, has wooden doors for each cell which renders the supervision of the prisoners much more difficult. The specially new features of Mr. Zimmerman's plan are the glass inside front, the circular form of construction, the central stairway with its "conning tower," the partition providing for the obstruction of vision, for the classification of prisoners and the elimination of a number of the attendants otherwise needed for supervision. Mr. Zimmerman believes that this cell house can be built for ten per cent. less than the familiar rectangular cell block.

Share on: WhatsApp @Hash Facebook Tweet