PRISON

(Fr. prendre, <o toAe.) Imprisonment is used in most civilized states for three purposes: for safe custody of persons charged with offences, for the detention of debtors, and for punishment; under which latter head the reformation of prisoners must be comprehended, as being properly only an adjunct to punishment. The first principles of order seem to require that these three cla es of prisoners should be kept entirely distinct, and. If po ible, in separate places of confinement; but even the former rule has been generally very imperfectly observed, while the latter is in most places impracticable by reason of expense. The alleviation of the horrors of Imprisonment, by physical improvement of the condition of prisoners and the imparting of religious instruction, has been from very early times an object with philanthropists; but the adaptation of imprisonment to serve the end of punishment has been, comparatively speaking, only very recently attempted. The Society of the Brothers of Mercy, in Italy, paid much attention to the former subject in the 15th and IGth centuries; and the names of S. Carlo Borromeo and St. Vincent de Paule have derived from it much of their lustre. But the earliest instance of a prison managed on any principles of policy and humanity seems to be that of the Penitentiary at Amsterdam, erected in 1595; an example which was soon followed by some of the German towns, especially Hamburg and Bremen. In England it is well known that the impulse of prison improvement was first communicated by the celebrated Howard, whose sufferings, when taken by a privateer and imprisoned at Brest, during the seven years' war, are said to have first directed his attention to the subject. The fruits of his observations, in his repeated visits to most of the prisons of Europe, were given to the world partly in his publications, and partly on examination before a committee of the House of Commons in 1774. To his suggestions, and those of Jonas Hanway, I are principally owing the provisions of the 19 G. 3. c. 74. (pa ed in 1778), truly called the basis of succeeding legislation on the subject. Solitary imprisonment was then first instituted. The works of Neeld and others, and the labours of the Prison Discipline Society, (founded, we believe, chiefly by Mr. Fowell Buxton.) kept the attention of the public fixed on the subject. In 1813, the construction of the Milbank Penitentiary was begun, intended as a species of model prison; but that establishment, from many errors committed in its foundation and first management, was long before it answered in any degree the views of its projectors. Meanwhile practical improvement had proceeded much further in the United States of America, where the experiments of solitary confinement and of a ociation in silence were both first instituted on any extensive scale, and have formed the basis of two different systems, which now divide the suffrages of observers. Europe has in this matter taken le ons from America; and the reports of French visiters (Me rs. Beaumont and De Tocqueville, 1834; Me rs. De Metz and Blouet, sent by government, 1837), of Dr. Juliers, sent from Pru ia, and Mr. Crawford from England, have contributed largely to the jjresent state of public opinion on the subject. In 1834, inspector? were appointed to report annually on the state of English and Scottish prisons, — a measure which had been earlier adopted with reference to Ireland; and their reports may t)e consulted with great advantage, both with a view to 11 U« CUIU 981 PRISON. the actual state of prisons, and their prospective reform. The " Third Report of the English Inspector for the Home District " (1838) is particularly valuable, from the historical sketch it contains, and from the comparisoi; there instituted between the separate and the silent systems. The chief heads of improvement in prison discipline which have been recommended or introduced since public attention was called to the subject are, 1. Inspection and control; 2. Cla ification; 3. Separate or solitary punishment; 4. The " silent " or non-intercourse system; 5. The introduction of labour; 6. Religious and intellectual instruction. — 1. The first of these is matter rather of practical than theoretical development. The history of the plan originally suggested by General Bentham and his brother, the philosopher, which has formed, to a certain extent, the basis of later experiments, is mentioned under the head Penitentiary. 2. Cla ification, under the English gaol acts of 1823 and 1824, has been extensively introduced into prisons. It is of course a great improvement on the indiscriminate mixture of prisoners of all cla es and characters which formerly prevailed; but as a means of reformation, or of punishment, it has not answered the views once entertained of it. And the reason is obvious: the only object of cla ification is the exclusion of the moral influence of more or le corrupted minds; but by no system of cla ification (and as many as fifteen cla es have been introduced in some prisons) can this be excluded. In every cla , whether arranged according to age, or degree of offence, or in any other practicable mode, there will probably be some unusually depraved characters; and then the experiment must fail. The only perfect cla ification is that which constitutes the basis of, 3. The separate system; namely, the entire separation of prisoners from each other in solitary cells. When this has been carried to exce as a means of punishment, namely, seclusion by day and by night, without labour, without employment, with only the occasional silent visits of the turnkey or the medical attendant, it has generally proved more than human nature can bear, at least for any time; but separate confinement with labour as an alleviation, and with occasional visits for religious consolation and instruction, is a very different mode of treatment. The separate system is that established in the great eastern penitentiary of Philadelphia, now in operation for ten or eleven years; and in that of Glasgow, — which may be mentioned as models in their kind. 4. The difficulty of enforcing solitary confinement, in some American prisons, seems to have led to the adojjtion of the i?7t'w/ system: of which the prison at Auburn, in Pennsylvania, affords the most celebrated instance. The prisoners work together in the day, but are prevented from all communication: at night they are separate. It was, we believe, introduced several years ago in the Maison de Force at Ghent. In England, it is in operation at Cold bath Fields, Wake field, and elsewhere. With respect to the comparative advantages of the two systems, the work of Me rs. Beaumont and De Tocqueville may be consulted for an impartial summary of evidence, without the expre ion of decided opinion. (Part I. chap. ii. s. 3.) The "separate" was recommended in 1832 by the committee on secondary punishments; and is advocated by Mr. Crauford, in his Report on the Penitentiaries of the U. S. 1 837, and in the 4th Report above alluded to; by Dr. Juliers; by Me rs. De Metz and Blouet; and by M. Moreau-Chris top he in various works. The silent system seems to be supported by M. Lucas, De la Reforme des Prisons, 183G; while, in his Theorie de V E?nprisonnement, he attempts to reconcile the two; by Me rs. Berenger and Gasparin; and by Mr. Inspector Williams (4th Report, England; Northern and Eastern Division). The chief objections to the separate system are, — 1. As a punishment, its inequality, being felt far more severely by some than others; but to this it may be answered, that those who do feel it are precisely those whom it is most desirable to affect — the more depraved. 2. Its effects on the mind and pa ions in some respects; a very difficult and delicate subject, and by far the most serious charge against it. 3. That even as a system of reform, for which, in subjects presenting any prospect of amendment, it is best calculated, it is utterly usele in short terms of imprisonment. " Those best acquainted with the subject in the U. S.," says Mr. Williams, "conceive that two years' imprisonment are required before any impre ion can be made, and from four to six years to achieve the work of reformation." To the silent system, its enemies object, — 1. The extreme difficulty of carrying it into succe ful operation. 2. Its supposed effect in irritating, degrading, and even brutalizing the minds of prisoners, by its vexatious discipline. They appeal in support of this position to the quantity of punishment (corporal, or by solitary confinement) which is required to carry it into effect. In Wake field and Cold bath Fields, upon this system, 26,257 punishments were inflicted on 13,188 prisoners, or two on each on the average; while in all England the proportion was found to be 54,825 punishments to 109,495 prisoners, or one to two only. But this is explained in some degree, in the 3K3 XXX. XXXV. xxxvi. The last prisons act is the 2 & 3 Vict. c. 56. (1839). By this act, separate confinement is for the first time distinguished from the severer punishment of solitary confinement. The justices are empowered to make rules for cla ification, ., subject to the approval of the secretary of state. According to the reports of 1838, 133,312 persons were confined in the prisons of England and Wales during that year; of whom 23,808 were committed for trial at a izes and se ions, 56,736 on summary conviction. PRISONS, [s. 994]