THE IDEAL OF A TRUE PRISON SYSTEM FOR A STATE
By Z[EBULON]. R[EED]. BROCKWAY
Superintendent of the Detroit House of Correction
The current opinion as to crime is two-fold: That all men are absolutely free to do or not to do; that they voluntarily elect
and deliberately do wickedness, with full knowledge of its nature and consequences, with full power to restrain themselves, and that it is a subterfuge and a lie that passion, appetite, or any other propensity ever enchains the will, and enslaves them; or, at least, that all men are born free, and if the chains of captivity now bind them, it is by their own folly and free act; that they might have prevented it, and if suffering comes as a consequence, it is but just; and that, if crime is committed, the public punishment should be such as to recompense them fully in anguish and pain for their wickedness, and to strike with terror those who know of their fate. On the other hand, it is maintained that our individual liberty of action is limited by the bias with which we are born, or by that arising from the circumstances of our early life (both beyond our control); that the quality of the physical organism, as well as the condition of health, at any given time, influences our impulses and desires, and bears upon the possibility or impossibility of self-control; that election itself is determined in great degree by the natural tastes and those that come by cultivation and habit, without our special volition: that any line of human conduct, good or bad, is governed much by the balance of power in the will or passions; that therefore a criminal act indicates a particular species of the genus homo, or some variety of a species, not favorable to friendly fellowship with the world at large; that society should not punish the criminal, but impose upon him such restraint and treatment (when the condition is clearly ascertained) as shall secure protection to itself, and conduce to the further and higher development of the wrong-doer himself.
The advocates of this latter view hold that vengeance for recompense belongs not to human hands, but to God, who has expressly reserved it to Himself; and that it has no place in a true prison system. Nor should punishment, they maintain, be inflicted upon the perpetrators of crime, that others may be deterred from a similar course, for this is unjust, jeopards reformation, and breeds antagonism to the law and its executors. They further affirm that, in the history of jurisprudence, the deterrent force of punishment is found practically a failure for the purpose in view. Nevertheless, they demand the most thorough treatment of criminals. They espouse no sickly sentimentalism. They are not mere popular philanthropists, but urge upon society the obligation to treat the great company constantly coming to the surface (whose mania or monomania, though formed and manifested never so naturally, still renders them dangerous or damaging to the public welfare), in such a manner that they shall either be cured, or kept under such continued custodial restraint as gives guarantee of safety from further depredations.
It will be noticed that there is a wide difference in these two views of crime; a difference so wide that every prison system must be founded upon one or the other of them, and not by any possibility upon both; for a system, so founded, would be divided against itself, and could not stand. Just here, thorough discussion is needed, for irrevocable choice must be made. If punishment, suffering, degradation are deemed deterrent, if they are the best means to reform the criminal and prevent crime, then let prison reform go backward to the pillory, the whipping-post, the gallows, the stake; to corporal violence and extermination! But if the dawn of christianity has reached us, if we have learned the lesson that evil is to be overcome with good, then let prisons and prison systems be lighted by this law of love. Let us leave, for the present, the thought of inflicting punishment upon prisoners to satisfy so-called justice, and turn toward the two grand divisions of our subject, the real objects of the system, viz.: the protection of society by the prevention of crime and reformation of criminals—considering first and more particularly what these two ideas involve; then the practical plan for the prison system that shall best succeed; and afterward the necessary steps by which it may be realized.