No common system—Each state takes care of prisoners in its own way—Prisons under the control of the general government—Lack of system not altogether without advantage—The "Pennsylvania System" versus the "Auburn System"—Other prisons—Convict versus free labour—Prison newspapers—The Elmira Reformatory—Similar experiments in other states—Obstacles to prison improvement—Institutions for juvenile offenders—Children's courts—Advantages and disadvantages of juvenile institutions—Interesting experiments.

There is no prison system common to the whole United States. Each of the forty-six states and the territories as well deals with its prisoners in its own way. The United States has two great prisons, one at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and the other at Atlanta, Georgia, besides a small one in the state of Washington, in which some of the offenders against the general government are confined, but the greater number of Federal prisoners are confined in state prisons by special arrangement with the state authorities. The general government, however, prescribes rules and regulations for the treatment of Federal prisoners, but has no authority whatever over the state prisoners confined, perhaps, in the same building.

Naturally conditions vary in different states and often in different prisons in the same state. Few states have a Department of Correction, and usually each prison is in the charge of a separate board, appointed either by the governor or the state legislature. The county jails in which short term prisoners or offenders awaiting trial are confined are almost invariably under the management of the local authorities and the condition of many is deplorable. Some state prisons are models in construction, sanitation, and government, and challenge comparison with the best in Europe. Others are poorly constructed, overcrowded, badly kept and worse governed. Conditions depend entirely upon the state of the public conscience and the sense of responsibility prevailing in the jurisdiction. Manifestly it is difficult to make general statements of American policy in penology.

Yet this very diversity has its advantages. While because of the lack of a uniform system, the prisons in some states are worse than they would be under general laws, still the various states are constantly experimenting. A new idea in prison construction, or a new method of government, will be tried in some state, by an officer who has been able to convince his board of governors of its practicability. A general board or commissioner would be less likely to interfere with the existing order. This very fact of independent jurisdictions is responsible for much of the American progress exhibited particularly in reformatory institutions.

A rough classification as to methods shows four different systems of dealing with felons. These are first, the cellular or separate; second, the congregate; third, the reformatory; fourth, the convict lease system. In addition there is a multitude of institutions organised to deal with the youthful offender, variously known as juvenile asylums, protectories, training schools, etc. Among them all there is much variation.

The only prison of the cellular type now existing in the United States is the Eastern Penitentiary of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia which was opened in 1829, though Walnut Street jail had in 1790 cells designed for solitary confinement. This prison is built in the form of a star with galleries radiating from a central hall. Most of the galleries are only one story, though a few are two. The architecture was probably borrowed from the prison of Ghent designed by Vilian, and begun in 1771.

Each prisoner is assigned to a large cell averaging in size perhaps sixteen by eight feet and twelve to fifteen feet in height. A yard about the same size open to the sky adjoins the cell and prisoners are allowed to take exercise for a specified time daily. Each cell contains the necessary furniture for a bedroom, including an electric light, a water tap and sanitary conveniences.

In theory the prisoner is confined in this cell without intercourse with any other prisoners, from his entrance until the sentence has expired. He sees and speaks only with prison officers or instructors, including the chaplain. He lives, works, eats, and sleeps in his cell. No machinery or at least none that can not be introduced into the cells is allowed in the prison. The prisoners make shoes, clothes, shirts, cigars, stockings, etc. A specified amount is expected from each prisoner and any greater production is credited to him. One half of the surplus goes to the county from which he was sentenced, and the other half may be spent for tobacco or other permitted luxuries, or may be sent to his family.

The results, according to Michael J. Cassidy, warden for many years, are exceedingly satisfactory. The first offenders are not corrupted by older prisoners and there is almost no question of discipline. There are few punishments. If a prisoner is not dressed when his breakfast is brought he may lose his meal, or if the utensils presented to be filled are not clean, the officer may in his discretion refuse to place the food in them. In rare cases the prisoner is deprived of work which has been found to be the most serious punishment of all. There are no dark cells, and corporal punishment is not employed.

Mr. Cassidy emphatically denies that the system causes insanity or that serious physical injury follows, and on the other hand declares that the reformatory results obtained are greater than in other prisons. About seventy-five per cent. of the first offenders do not appear again and four per cent. of the habitual criminals reform. The results in his judgment justify the greater cost of the system compared with the Auburn or congregate system of which more will be said.

Though the idea put into execution at Philadelphia was not new the prison has been often visited and the "Pennsylvania system" as it is called, (though the Western Penitentiary at Allegheny is organised on the congregate system) has been widely copied, chiefly in Europe. In the United States it has been tried and abandoned in New Jersey, Rhode Island, Virginia, Maryland, and to a limited extent in New York, partly on account of the expense and partly because of doubts as to its humanity. On the other hand the system was adopted in Belgium in 1838, in Sweden in 1840, in Denmark in 1846, and to a limited extent by other countries. Pentonville in England is modelled after this prison, as are also Mountjoy in Dublin, and the Antrim jail in Belfast in Ireland.

The great majority of the prisons of the United States are organised according to the "Auburn" or congregate system. Here the prisoners are confined in separate cells at night, but work during the day in large workshops, supposedly in silence. The New York state prison at Auburn was organised in 1816. For a considerable time it was under the charge of Elam Lynds, formerly a captain in the army, and a strict disciplinarian. He was able to preserve almost absolute silence in the workshops, using corporal punishment if necessary. His success while preserving at the same time the general good will of his charges is another striking illustration of the fact that a good man can make any system work.

Though the system was not original with Auburn, the plan of organisation has passed into prison history by that name, and violent controversies have raged between the partisans of the opposing ideas. To it has been added since the organisation, the system of classification of prisoners, of good conduct marks, and of shortening sentences by good behaviour, which is in force in many states. In some states the indeterminate sentence which first was applied only in the reformatories has been extended to certain classes of offenders confined in state prisons.

The general regulations applying to the prisons in New York state, including Auburn, Sing Sing, at Ossining, Clinton, etc., are practically the same. The prisoner is assigned on entering to certain work depending upon his physique, intelligence and previous training. The efficient prison book-keeper at Sing Sing a few years ago was a convict, and the chief clerk for the superintendent of industries was also a convict.

The regulations provide for lights in the cells until ten o'clock, and for the use of the prison library. A letter may be written once a month and all proper letters received at the prison will be delivered after examination. The prisoner may also receive a visit of a half hour's duration in presence of a keeper once in two months and at the same intervals a box of proper eatables may be received from friends, or purchased from private funds. For breach of the prison regulations, a prisoner may lose a part of the time which would otherwise be gained by good behaviour, and may lose his privilege of receiving visitors. Serious infractions are punished by confinement in a dark cell, and in spite of the regulations, by physical punishment in many cases.

Formerly the labour of the convicts was contracted to outside parties at a fixed price for each individual. While the contractors were not supposed to inflict punishment, by bribing prison officials the reluctant were forced to do the amount of work required. Undoubtedly there were grave abuses. Some convicts were worked beyond their strength to satisfy the greed of the contractor. During this period there was a stone shed, a foundry, a hat shop, a file shop and a laundry, all of which paid good profits to the contractors, and from a financial standpoint were advantageous to the state.

The prejudice against this form of convict labour was sufficient in 1887 to cause the passage of a law absolutely forbidding contract labour. At the same time an appropriation was made to purchase the plants then existing and continue them on the state account. The results were not satisfactory, especially as another law later required all goods manufactured to be stamped "prison made." The labour unions continued to object to the competition of convicts with free labour and by a constitutional amendment adopted in 1896, it was finally forbidden. For a time the prisoners were idle, but shortly they were ordered to manufacture so far as possible goods required by other public institutions, and these institutions on the other hand were ordered to submit all lists of supplies desired to the prisons, in order that they might have the opportunity of furnishing them.

Since that time, the prisoners have been partially employed in manufacturing stone, knit goods, clothing, furniture, window sash, shoes, etc., but the demand is not sufficient to require full work, and the system is wasteful and uneconomic. The management is not stimulated to do its best and little or no attempt is made to keep the men from loafing. The system furnishes sufficient physical exercise but no training in systematic work which will be of value when the prisoner is released.

At Sing Sing prison the prisoners publish a paper, the Star of Hope written and printed entirely by themselves, and a few other prisons also issue papers. The founder of the paper has since his release published an interesting book giving his experiences and his views upon matters of prison discipline and government.[2] Speaking of the contributors to the paper he says: "Nor was the literary tone of the paper at all despicable. It would have been quite possible to make it more elaborate and dignified, for there was no end of talent available, but the aim held in view was to make it representative.... Poetry was the favourite medium employed by the contributors, and I suppose the Star of Hope printed and still prints more and worse verse than any other publication in the world."

The question of prison labour has been a serious one in many states. All agree that the convict must work for his own sake, and yet the objections to placing his products in competition with free labour have been loud and strong. In some states the labour unions have also objected to the policy of teaching trades at the expense of the state, claiming that in this way the offender is given a decided advantage over the youth who has kept within the law.

Prison managers have been at their wits' end to find work to which objections would not be made. In San Quentin prison, California, the convicts work in a jute mill and at crushing stone for roads. The alleged monopoly price for sacks demanded by the few jute mills in the country has been lowered by prison competition, and the farmers approve. On the other hand, the labour performed while in prison has little relation to outside employment. In the Minnesota state prison, the manufacture of binding twine for cereal crops was begun to break down an alleged monopoly. North Carolina, and perhaps other states, use the labour of a large number of their convicts in agriculture. Here the product of convict labour is so small a proportion of the total product that the price received by free labour is hardly affected at all, and no objection has been made.

The larger number of the prisons which still engage in manufacturing are organised on the "piece-price" system, i. e. materials are furnished and a price as nearly as possible what must be paid to free labour is charged for each unit of product. By this method the abuses of contract labour, and the wastefulness of the state account system are avoided.

There are in the United States few great prisons which are known to all. The best known are of course those of states which contain large cities; first, because a larger number of the more notorious criminals come from the cities, and second, because the city newspapers give a larger proportion of their space to criminal news than do the journals of the smaller municipalities. Besides those already mentioned, other well known prisons are at Joliet, Illinois; Trenton, New Jersey; Columbus, Ohio; Baltimore, Maryland, and on Blackwell's Island in New York City.

The reformatory system of the United States strictly speaking began with the organisation of the Elmira Reformatory at Elmira, New York, in 1876, which was largely due to the efforts of Rev. E. C. Wines, who gave his life to the improvement of prison conditions, and to Dr. Theodore W. Dwight. They were much interested in the success of Colonel Montesinos, Captain Maconochie and Sir Walter Crofton abroad, and drew up a plan which was adopted by the legislature in 1869. The institution was to be distinctly reformatory, and sentences were to be indeterminate.

It was opened for reception of offenders between sixteen and thirty years of age in 1876 under the superintendency of Z. R. Brockway who has given to the institution its peculiar character. The statistics kept for a number of years show that sixty-seven per cent. of those entering are illiterate, that eighty-nine per cent. have no trade, and that more than sixty-eight per cent. do not have what could be classed as good physiques, and a considerable number may be classed as degenerates. Further ninety-eight per cent. are committed from the cities.

Effort is made to develop the inmates on all sides. Athletic training, gymnastic work and military drill are required. Attention is given to baths, massage, and diet. Instruction in the common branches is given, and there are frequent lectures, and entertainments. Debating societies are organised and every effort is made to turn the misdirected energy into saner channels. At the same time a part of every day is spent in the shops and the rudiments of trades are taught.

The inmates are divided into four grades with different privileges. Conduct marks based upon performance of duty, cleanliness, progress, etc., are given, and promotion to a higher or removal to a lower grade depend upon the prisoner's record. When a boy or young man has been in the upper first grade for six months he becomes a candidate for release on parole. If his record is good for six months after leaving the Reformatory he is usually discharged.

The officers claim that the institution has been an unqualified success, that out of five thousand discharged only three hundred and sixty-five were returned, and that about eighty-two per cent. of those committed are permanently reformed. On the other hand the officers of the regular prisons declare that their prisons are full of "Elmira graduates," and the state has built another institution at Napanoch which is to receive the more incorrigible material from Elmira, and with sterner measures again attempt reformation.

A number of states have adopted the system wholly or in part, including Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota, Kansas and South Dakota. The degree of success has varied with the superintendent. The most interesting experiment is perhaps the Massachusetts Reformatory for women at Sherborn.

This institution for several years seemed on the point of failure, owing partly to the management and partly to the fact that sentences were too short. Finally a woman of strong character, and broad sympathies, Mrs. Ellen C. Johnson, was induced to take charge and success appears to have followed her efforts. The general plan is the same as at Elmira, except that restraint is not so prominent. The large majority of the commitments are the result of intemperance and unchastity, and undoubtedly mother love plays a part in drawing back the inmates from improper or immoral lives. Inmates released on parole are in demand as domestics, and in many cases give entire satisfaction.

The fourth plan mentioned in the classification, the convict lease system, now exists in only a few states, chiefly in the South. Under this system convicts are leased to work in gangs outside the prison walls at mining, railroad and turnpike building, canal cutting and similar employments. The contractor pays the state a fixed sum per head for the convicts, feeds, clothes and guards them. Their management is in his hands, restrained in some degree by the continuous or intermittent presence of a state inspector. The work is generally laborious, the intelligence of the labourers is low and they are disposed to shirk. The contractor desires to make a profit and generally works the unfortunates to the limit of their endurance, clothing and feeding them as poorly as he dares. Almost unbelievable brutality has occurred in these convict camps, ending in many cases in the death of stubborn or rebellious individuals. A partially awakened public conscience no longer permits former abuses but disgraceful conditions are still periodically brought to light.

The authorities responsible for the leases excuse or defend them on the following grounds. They say that a large majority of the leased convicts are negroes of an order of intelligence so low that they can be utilised only to a limited extent in any work performed in the prison; that confinement without labour is regarded as rather pleasant than otherwise, as imprisonment in itself means to them little or no disgrace; that the labour is of the same kind at which they would be employed, if free. Therefore the state must support in idleness without punitive effect a large number of offenders, or else lease their labour outside the prison walls. While all these statements are in a measure true, it may well be doubted whether any state is ever justifiable in surrendering the guardianship of its own delinquents.

The two great obstacles in the way of prison improvement in the United States are parsimony and politics. Though the cost of some prisons is excessive the money is not always wisely spent. The salaries paid are seldom high enough to secure men of a high type of intelligence and character, for the subordinate positions at least. There are few men who are fitted for the work who are willing to take the places with the low salaries and uncertain tenure of office. In many cases attendants and keepers are ignorant and brutal and by their defects neutralise any reformatory effect.

This brings us to the second great evil; politics. Usually the higher positions at least in the prisons are regarded as a part of the patronage of the party in power. Appointments of superintendents, wardens and other officers are too often made with more regard to political expediency than to fitness. The rule is not universal. As mentioned above Mr. Cassidy of Philadelphia and Mr. Brockway of Elmira held their places regardless of political changes, but many men have been removed, just when they were beginning to become really efficient. Where civil service rules are applied to the lower positions it has been charged that the result has been rather to protect the inefficient, than to secure satisfactory service.

Institutions for the control and discipline of delinquents under sixteen years of age exist by the score. Some are under the control of the different religious denominations, as for example the Catholic Protectory in New York, while others are supported by private contributions or by the city or state. Street waifs without parents or with drunken or immoral parents may be committed by the courts, rather than to regular orphan asylums if they have shown vicious traits or are considered incorrigible. A parent who is unable to control a son or daughter, by making an affidavit to that effect before the proper officer, may secure admission for the child to some institutions.

The larger number of children committed however have broken the law. If sent to prison to associate with hardened criminals they are almost certain to become habitual criminals themselves, while discharge with a reprimand may be regarded by the boys themselves as weak leniency, and may cause contempt for the law. In some American cities, special children's courts are organised to take charge of complaints against children. Where the judges have that indescribable combination of qualities which gives influence over boys, they have been successful without resorting to confinement. A striking example is Judge Ben. B. Lindsay of Denver, Colorado, whose court has been widely described. Attempts by others to copy his methods have failed. When ordinary judges without particular sympathy or qualifications are assigned in turn to the courts, there seems to be little advantage in the organisation. Conditions however are so chaotic, that it is impossible to pass a judgment worth while.

The purposes of such institutions may be stated as the following: to inculcate respect for authority and create the habit of obedience; to impart the rudiments of education, to form habits of industry, to impart moral instruction. Some in addition teach or begin to teach trades. In the execution of these aims, we have very diverse organisations. Some of the institutions are in effect prisons, with walls, bars and guards. Others apparently exercise no more restraint than is seen in an ordinary boarding school. It is true that it is not entirely easy to leave the dormitory without detection, and that generally while at work or at play the inmates are under some sort of supervision, but the idea of restraint is not made prominent.

Another interesting experience is the George Junior Republic at Freeville, New York. Here a miniature state is organised with legislative, executive and judicial departments. So far as practicable, all offices are filled by inmates, with the idea that responsibility will bring out the better qualities. The plan has not been widely adopted, however, and the institutions are generally organised as schools.

Some of the more successful of this sort are the school at Glen Mills, Pennsylvania, at Golden, Colorado, at Lancaster, Ohio, and at Dobbs Ferry, New York. The Jackson Training School at Concord, North Carolina, organised on the plan of the Glen Mills school, has seemed to show that the same methods successful in an urban commonwealth are equally successful in a semi-rural state.

A large proportion of the children are orphans or half-orphans, and a larger proportion have been habitual truants. The average of energy and intellect is higher than will be found in an ordinary school. Sometimes it is their excess of energy that has caused their transgression. When subjected to discipline and compelled to attend school, many make rapid progress and also acquire a sense of order and self-respect. On the other hand in very large institutions an unexpected danger has arisen. The manifold disciplinary influences have taught them obedience and industry but have at the same time deprived them of initiative. They have become "institutionalised" and find difficulty in adjusting themselves to life outside. They require constant direction.

For the purpose of avoiding this danger, the newer institutions are organised upon the "cottage plan." Instead of large dormitories, small houses, each under the charge of an officer and his wife, are built to accommodate twenty to forty boys. These are grouped around the administration building and the workshops. The results seem to show a great gain over the old methods but no one is yet ready to say that the ideal has been attained. Nevertheless, it can be said without fear of contradiction that the institutions for the training of juvenile offenders are more successful than any other part of the disciplinary and penal systems of the United States.

The combat of crime may be adjudged to have entered upon its latest stage by the acceptance of the more enlightened principles daily gaining attention in the most civilised countries. The treatment most in favour is preventative rather than punitive, which is considered at once the humane and efficacious method of dealing with crime. It is now being attacked in the youth when still impressionable and susceptible of cure. All criminality may be roughly separated into two principal divisions; first, those who should never be committed to prison; and secondly, those who should never be released from it. The widespread adoption of this axiom must go far to diminish the volume of crime. There is less and less recourse to imprisonment; sentences are inflicted for shorter terms, and it is avoided whenever possible by sparing first offenders from incarceration and postponing sentence on all who give promise of future amendment. The effect of this very commendable leniency is to be seen in the diminishing numbers of the actually imprisoned and the increased economy of gaol administration.