MODERN PENOLOGY.

BY

EDWIN M. ABBOTT,

OF PENNSYLVANIA.

It is but a short step from the day of Blackstone to the present, and when we consider that in the age of that great legal luminary over 150 crimes, many of them insignificant, were punishable by death, then truly can the present system of penology be called modern.

Nearly all of the reforms in the methods of treating prisoners have found birth in the last fifty years, and the greatest progress has been made in the past two decades.

Truly the old theory of an "eye for an eye" has been supplanted by the realization that mankind is his " brother's keeper," and we have long since discarded the view that the only punishment which should follow the commission of a crime must be imprisonment, degradation and banishment from the realms of organized society forever. Today crime is studied as a science, and in many instances it is halted in its incipiency while hundreds of thousands of children and adults are steered back into orderly channels.

In other words, as one great penologist has well said, "the modern penal institution should become a repair shop and not a dump heap."

Many crimes have been superinduced by the misfortunes of birth, environment and lack of education, while other misdeeds have resulted from the astute mind endeavoring to circumvent modern laws and institutions. This is the age of law and lawmaking, and every embryo legislator feels it his bounden duty, immediately upon election to some law-making body, to prescribe for all present and future ills with some panacea of his own concoction. The result has been a multiplicity of laws and an incomprehensible number of law-breakers, most of whom go undetected. Perjury is common, but rarely punished, and many other crimes follow a like course. The income tax, the prohibi

tion of the sale of liquors, the restriction as to the sale or use of drugs, the automobile regulations, all contribute their quota of law-breakers, and when, finally, an offender is caught in the net and dragged before the public to stand trial for one of these offences, is he to become an outcast forever?

Most of these crimes, had they existed one hundred years ago, would have been punishable with death, while in other instances the culprit would have been severely punished and then turned loose upon society, to prey upon it or become a dependent of the most vicious kind.

The juvenile criminal of Dickens' time would have met such a fate. It was the criticism of this great author which roused public opinion and awakened Great Britain, so that the first Reformatory School Act was enacted in 1854 and secured the substitution of the school for the gaol and a change in the system of child punishment which has since grown and developed in the United States and abroad. Previously all prisoners when arrested were herded together. The arrest of a child for an offence and subsequent confinement with adult prisoners never resulted in any good. Today the juvenile is immediately segregated, an investigation made of his history, a separate hearing held in a juvenile court, and he is either placed on probation and helped to find his proper sphere outside of an institution or is sent to a reform school and educated for a useful existence. Over fifty schools of this character are to be found in England today, and innumerable numbers of children have been saved since such reformatories have been established. The history of the Denver Court, presided over by Judge Ben Lindsay, is world-renowned, but his humane example of how to handle the cases of juvenile delinquents is now followed in nearly every judicial district in this land. I might qualify this statement in one important respect. I refer to the juvenile who transgresses the laws of the United States. There is no proviso in the Federal statutes for special care of juveniles. In some instances arrangements are made with state or local authorities for the care of such children, but there is a great need in the national code for special custody and care of juvenile offenders. And the results of this special treatment of children have been well worth all the expense and labor involved. The records show that the greater percentage

of those who have passed through the juvenile courts never again resort to the ways of crime. England's records of over fifty years show 80 per cent redeemed. In this country Edward Livingston tried the experiment, in 1825, in New York, and his initiative laid the foundation for that excellent institution at Randall's Island. Boston and Philadelphia followed this lead which has since developed the recognition of this principle throughout the many states of the Union.

The juvenile-adult was next segregated, and such institutions as Elmira, New York; Concord, Mass., and Mansfield, Ohio, resulted. So well has the latter institution served that it is affectionately called "The University of Another Chance."

The first offender then received the benefits of changed conditions and the Probation Law was evolved. Most of the states have such a law and again the Federal Government is derelict in failing to recognize the value of this plan.

Of course, there are crimes for which no second chance can be extended without confinement, but when the attorney-general of the National Government intervenes and prohibits judges of the United States Courts from suspending sentences in all cases, he is interfering with the discretionary power of the humane jurist, who should know best how to deal with the case before him. Congress should speedily enact probation legislation, which in proper cases can be applied to first offenders for minor offences. The beneficent results of this system are so great that no one today would expunge these laws.

The paroling of prisoners is a more recent element in the sentencing of convicts. For years it was practically recognized under a system of commutation of sentence for good behavior, but this did not prove satisfactory. When a prisoner earned commutation and discharge he was left to his own devices to re-enter society by the honest road to employment, which was beset with insurmountable obstacles at every turn, or by the backdoor to another career of crime, induced principally by lack of encouragement and a boycott placed upon his efforts resulting from the stigma of a "criminal record." But parole, founded upon an indeterminate sentence, corrected this weakness and evil. Instead of a flat sentence for a fixed period, most sentences are now pronounced with a minimum and maximum period. If

deserving, the prisoner is given his chance on parole at the expiration of the minimum sentence, and in some states this is mandatory. He then goes on his probationary test. He is compelled to report regularly, live honestly, work continuously and has a friend at hand in the parole officer, who will help him, advise him and strengthen him along the way. Unless he again reverts to crime, he will regain a place among honest men and is protected from hounding and discharge from employment. Many of our judges are to be criticised and condemned for not utilizing this system in imposing sentences, but for some inexplicable reason they prefer to disregard the law and continue to impose a flat sentence.

The Parole Law undoubtedly is the outgrowth of the English ticket-of-leave system, which developed under opposition to the Australian deportation method of punishment. But how different a system! The ticket-of-leave convict was a marked man with no ambition, encouragement or hope. He simply existed, and on the commission of any crime similar to that for which he had been in jail, he was haled into custody to account for his entire time since granted liberty. If no culprit could be found to pay the price for the crime committed, he was often subjected to third degree treatment so as to secure a confession for a crime he never committed. Thus the majesty of the law would be vindicated. But today that is almost impossible under the parole system. Of course, false accusations can be brought against any person, and the newspapers are too prone to accuse paroled prisoners of crime, and many are particularly jubilant when one such falls by the wayside. But the records prove that throughout this country over 75 per cent of paroled prisoners never again resort to criminal careers. In Pennsylvania, the statistics show over 95 per cent discharged from the two state penitentiaries never again have been arrested, and such a record proves the merits of this system.

The treatment of minor misdemeanants, the flotsam and jetsam of our large cities, is another problem which modern lawbreakers are endeavoring to solve. There is no place in this country for anyone who will not work, either rich or poor. During the World War many states enacted laws compelling every able-bodied man to be employed at a useful occupation. In times

of peace this should also be necessary. We have workhouses for the tramp and drunkard, the idle and dissolute, but they are not filling the need adequately. In many communities dissolute women and street-walkers are receiving special attention. Proper medical care is given them, and when cured of physical ailments, they are directed upon a course of honest endeavor and assisted to live decent, upright lives. The users of narcotic drugs are also receiving similar help. They are treated as diseased and encouraged to break the chains which bind them.

The criminal insane have also come in for segregation, special study and treatment. Institutions for this work are maintained in most states, and every opportunity is afforded for recovery, if possible, or proper care and restraint where the affliction is incurable.

But the weakest link in our penal system requires careful study and immediate attention. This is the employment and compensation of prisoners, many of whom are in county jails and workhouses, and all of whom should be confined in state. or federal institutions and continuously occupied. Except as places for confinement awaiting trial, the county jail should be abolished. No prisoner transgresses a county law. He breaks state or national laws and should be punished in state or federal institutions. And when he is confined he should not be allowed to stagnate and rot. Every prisoner should be given useful employment of a character-building kind and receive compensation for his labor. If he has no trade, he should be taught one. If he will not work, he should be given every inducement to do so. He is a charge on the community so long as he is incarcerated, and he should relieve the state of much of the burden by working out the cost of conviction, the cost of maintenance, and assist in supporting his dependents outside. He should also be compelled, in so far as it is possible, to make restitution to those he has despoiled. This could be made a part of the sentence.

During the war many prisoners in our institutions desired to help their country with war work, but in a number of commonweaths this was impossible owing to the restrictions placed upon prisoners being employed. Such a condition should not be allowed to continue anywhere. Every inmate of every institution can find something useful to do and should be afforded the opportunity of doing it.