The Kansas University Quarterly : $b Vol. I, No. 4, April 1893

QUARTERLY ***

Transcriber’s Notes:

Underscores “_” before and after a word or phrase indicate _italics_ in the original text. Equal signs “=” before and after a word or phrase indicate =bold= in the original text. Small capitals have been converted to SOLID capitals. Typographical and punctuation errors have been silently corrected.

Vol. I. APRIL, 1893. No. 4.

THE KANSAS UNIVERSITY QUARTERLY

=CONTENTS=

PENOLOGY IN KANSAS, _F. W. Blackmar_

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT IN THE UNITED STATES, _F. H. Hodder_

PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY LAWRENCE, KANSAS _Price of this number, 50 cents_ Entered at the Post-office in Lawrence as Second-class matter.

COMMITTEE OF PUBLICATION.

E. H. S. BAILEY W. H. CARRUTH E. MILLER F. W. BLACKMAR C. G. DUNLAP S. W. WILLISTON V. L. KELLOGG, MANAGING EDITOR

JOURNAL PUBLISHING HOUSE LAWRENCE, KANSAS 1893

KANSAS UNIVERSITY QUARTERLY.

Vol. I. APRIL, 1893. No. 4.

PENOLOGY IN KANSAS.

BY F. W. BLACKMAR.

The Kansas State Penitentiary at Lansing has been noted as one of the best prisons in the far west. And indeed in some particular features it is quite remarkable. Among its especially good qualities, as compared with other prisons of similar nature, are its financial and economic management and its thorough discipline. Its financial management shows it to be practically a self-supporting institution. The institution has been fortunate in securing good management and in the utilization of the labor of the prisoners, by means of the contract system of labor, as well as in performing nearly all of the work in connection with repairs, improvements, etc. But especially has it been fortunate in its location immediately above a rich vein of coal, so that a shaft could be sunk within the prison walls for the working of the mine. (See figure 4.)

The mine has thus been made to yield a handsome income for the benefit of the State. The running expenses of the penitentiary for the biennial period of 1891 and 1892 were $297,409.47, while the receipts from contract labor, coal sales and other sources were $215,190.35. Thus making an expenditure over and above cash receipts of $81,939.94. But if it be considered, as it ought to be, that coal to the value of $4,420.78 was furnished the western sufferers, and that coal to the value of $42,533.68 was furnished to State institutions by the prison management, and also that $50,106.46 were spent in permanent improvement,[1] it will be seen that the income of the prison has exceeded its current expenses by a margin of over $5,000 for the biennium of 1891 and ’92. The total income from the coal mines for two years was $168,993.57 and the total income from contract labor in the same period was $78,225.80. This is a remarkable showing for a prison containing on an average about 900 prisoners of all grades and classes.

[1] Eighth Biennial Report of Kansas State Penitentiary, p. 7.

A close inspection of the prison management will convince one that a strictly military discipline prevails within the prison.[2] It is a busy place at the penitentiary. All able-bodied men not undergoing special punishment are employed. It is not a place for idlers, for the law permits and requires service. The management of the different industries, the hospital, the library, the insane department, the kitchen and dining room all show care and system. So, also, for cell-ventilation and other forms of sanitation there is great care exercised by those in authority. While it is well to acknowledge the excellent management of the prison during the past, it is also pertinent to consider what progress may be made in the future. As there has been such great advancement in prison science in the past twenty years, it may be well to measure the Kansas penological system by ideal systems, as well as by the foremost practice in the best regulated prisons in Europe and America, to ascertain in what especial lines Kansas needs to develop her penological system.

No doubt it is highly gratifying to the tax-payers of Kansas that the institution is on a self-supporting basis. Especially is this to be approved in a new state where so much must be done in a short time; where schools, churches, hospitals, asylums, and penal institutions must be built and maintained by the people almost before they have made themselves comfortable in a new country. These must be provided for, while railroads, roads, bridges and court houses must be built and the native resources be made productive for the support of all.

But admitting all this, the management of prisons must consider reform as the ultimate service to be performed in all penal institutions. The new prison law of New York has admitted that reform is the ultimate end of all confinement. But it views reformation as the only radical means of protection to society. Reformation consists in “the reasonable probability that the prisoner will live and remain at liberty without violating the law.”[3] In this the law rests on the political basis of protecting society rather than upon the moral basis of converting and improving the qualities of the individual for his own sake. Much progress has been made in the past fifty years in the treatment of prisoners respecting discipline and reform. Indeed, an entirely new light has been thrown upon the subject of penology. A careful inquiry has been made into the question of what men are confined for, how they are to be managed while under confinement, and what is to be done with them after confinement. Although the fundamental principles of penology are quite well established concerning the object and nature of discipline, yet there are many questions of detail respecting the methods to be pursued in carrying out these principles of punitive and reformatory measures. In other words, the practical application of theory, in spite of all the progress that has been made, leaves serious difficulties to be met and mastered. It is generally considered by all right-thinking persons versed in prison science that the following objects of confinement are essential in every case: First, the protection of society; second, punishment of the offender; third, prevention of crime; and fourth, reform of criminals. Doubtless no theory of prison discipline may be considered complete which lacks any one of these four great fundamental principles. Yet it is true that we shall find, even at this day, one, two, and even three of these four fundamental principles violated in the practice of the imprisonment of our fellow beings. The practice of hurrying one, who does commit a crime, away from the sight and contact of his fellow beings, is indicative of a universal sentiment in modern society. Society demands at least this protection, and its request and privilege should never be denied in this respect. But the old idea of punishment for revenge has nearly died out of modern penalties of the law. There was a time when, coupled with the desire to shut one away from society, doubtless for its own protection, was a desire to take revenge upon the individual who had outraged society. Sometimes a desire for revenge precipitated an immediate punishment regardless of law and order. Sometimes it was studiously and systematically cruel in all its plans for punishment as well as in their execution. But in a large measure this has been eradicated from the spirit of our laws and institutions. We see some evidence of it in our modern process of lynching when anger and revenge seize upon people with such force as to cause them to lynch the lawbreaker in a most cruel manner. So also in respect to individuals who have committed great crimes, when the whole community seem so desirous of revenge that they have thrown their whole support into the prosecution of the offender. But these are exceptional cases. The spirit of punishment in modern times is that which looks calmly on the act of the lawbreaker as an injustice to society for which he must pay the penalty. In other words, a man is imprisoned for life or hung, not because society desires to wreak upon him vengeance on account of the crime which he has committed, but because society demands protection, and that he must be punished on account of the demand to uphold the dignity and power of the law, for law without a penalty has little force to the evil doer.

[2] The writer is much indebted to the present Warden, Hon. Geo. H. Case, and to his able assistants for their courtesy in showing him the working details of the prison.

[3] Quoted from Prison Science, by Eugene Smith, p. 7.

Again, in regard to the prevention of crime. One of the chief objects of penal servitude is to set an example before other evil-disposed persons of what the consequences must be if they in turn violate the law. But in each of these cases it is to make the commitment of crime less frequent that men are imprisoned, rather than that they should suffer for their sins. But, finally, in the last case the reform of criminals within or without the prison walls has become one of the prime principles of penology. No present system or theory can be complete in these days that does not consider in some manner the methods of bringing back into legitimate society those who by their deeds have become outcasts from the body politic. In the study of sociology there are two sides of social life to be considered: First, there is what might be called legitimate society, which has sprung up from indefinite and simple beginnings, but has grown into a strong organism, which might be called the proper status of social life; and then there is the other side of humanity which may be termed the broken down, decrepit or fragmentary part of the great social body, which may be called disorganized society. It is as much the duty of the reformer to study the organized and legitimate society as it is to study the disorganized or the fragmentary. In modern times there have been a great many who call themselves social scientists, who devote a great deal of time to the criminal and the pauper, and properly so, for, indeed, it is from these broken down parts of humanity that we realize more especially the nature of human society, and discern more clearly the means of preventing crime; but the ideal or legitimate society must not be lost sight of. We must keep before our eyes the proper laws, proper government and proper protection of organized society while we investigate the habits, conditions and qualities of its outcasts. Hence in all modern reforms there are two subjects to consider: A reform measure which shall by direct application tend to develop and strengthen that which is already considered good and, on the other hand, a reform measure which shall reclaim and reform that which is considered bad. In this respect the state prison and the state university are not so far apart as it would seem: one tending to build up and strengthen legitimate society, to protect the state in all its interests, to make law more prominent, reform more stable, human society more moral and intellectual, crime less frequent and industry more prevalent by well ordered education. These are the objects of the state university. While, on the other hand, in accordance with the last one of the penological principles stated, the prison has for its duty the same objects as the university, although applied to a class of individuals entirely different, who overstep the bounds of the law and by their own habits have abstracted themselves from legitimate society. Both institutions exist for the improvement of society and neither is instituted for the purpose of revenge.

While we have carried on the work of reform of prisoners to a considerable extent and while many seem to be carried away with it as the only great method of solving the evils of the day, we must not forget that the great institutions which tend to develop society on the basis of prevention of crime are not the only ones which are important to consider. And this arises from the very fact of reform, that if we allow either crime or pauperism to develop rapidly, unchecked, we shall soon find it such a burden on human society that the legitimate and well organized will become defective on account of the increase in the number of paupers and criminals who form a constant menace to civil institutions. While all sentiments for reform arise primarily from human sympathy with the weak and the erring, the state still rests the cause of its action in the full and complete protection of legitimate society. It matters not how individual sympathies act, the reformation of criminals finds its cause to be in the common weal of society. To make a prisoner more intellectual, to give him better moral qualities, to prepare him for better industrial independence, to send him out with a better life and means, if he wills, to support himself, to adopt means to help him from the prison world in which he has lived into a greater world outside: all this might arise out of benevolence, but it has for its ultimate end the simple protection and improvement of society as a whole. Consequently reform has become the sole great object in detaining criminals within prison walls. All other objects must be considered as means to this one great end.

In the discussion of penological principles one of the foremost methods of reform to be noticed is that of the classification of all criminals. Perhaps Belgium was the foremost state of Europe to adopt a thoroughly practical classification of prisoners. Formerly it was considered sufficient to have a large prison pen, a foul den into which old and young, light offenders and heavy villains were thrust, taking them out only occasionally for service or keeping them without service at all. Here the old criminals, hardened through many years of repeated crimes, would rehearse their stories to the young who were soon educated in all of the tricks of the trade. Here in these horrid dens the propensities for crime were increased rather than diminished, and plots and plans were made for future depredations upon society.

Within a comparatively recent period most nations have endeavored to properly classify prisoners. First a general classification, separating the old from the young, the hardened criminals from the novices. The modern tendency is to institute reform schools and work houses for juveniles, reformatories for youth, and regular prisons for hardened criminals. But in the highest ideal of prison science each one of these is to be a reformatory of a different class. Kansas has determined upon this classification. The Reform School at Topeka, the Reformatory at Hutchinson and the State Penitentiary at Lansing represent this three-fold classification. The reformatory at Hutchinson has not been completed. Its methods are to be patterned after the reformatory at Elmira, N. Y., the model institution of its class in America. The chief difficulty in the establishment of such an institution in Kansas is its great expense. It is a great undertaking for a young state like Kansas to compete with an old wealthy state like New York. Yet the Kansas reformatory may take all the essential features of the Elmira reformatory and by obtaining rather more service from its inmates may be made less expensive. It will be trying to Kansas tax-payers to provide such an industrial school for the criminals of the state as that at Elmira, while it is only by dint of close saving that they are able to give as good an education to their own sons and daughters who have never offended against the state. Yet it must be remembered that this is done for the benefit of the whole state, for the purpose of lessening crime and expense. The reformatory at Hutchinson should be completed as soon as possible as there is a great need for it that the prisoners at Lansing may be properly classified and a certain group of those most susceptible of reform should be sent there.

Within the prison walls classification of individual prisoners according to crimes, temperament and habits has been of great assistance in their management. In the United States there are two main systems in vogue, that known as the Pennsylvania System and that as the New York System. The former may be defined as the solitary cellular system, and the latter as the single cell system, with prisoners working and dining together. The Pennsylvania system had its origin in the celebrated Cherry Hill prison, built in 1821 to 1829, containing over 600 separate cells for continuous solitary confinement. This solitary confinement in large airy rooms is expensive but is considered as the best treatment of prisoners. Here the prisoner is kept at work, or instructed in trades or books. Work becomes a necessity to him. The only punishment is a dark cell with deprivation of work for a period.

The New York system is as has been practiced at Auburn, by which the prisoners are confined in solitary cells during the night, but have companionship during the day while at work, and at the dinner table. Each system has warm advocates. The solitary cell system has had most practice in Europe but the American plan has made up the lack of proper classification by the excessive work of prisoners.

Many persons hold that classification of prisoners in groups is a failure, and that the solitary cellular system is the only commendable method. Edward Livingston has thus set forth the advantages of this system:

“Every association of convicts that can be formed will, in a greater or less degree, corrupt, but will never reform those of which it is composed, and we are brought to the irresistible conclusion that classification once admitted to be useful, it is so in an inverse proportion to the numbers of which each class is composed. But it is not perfect until we come to the plan at which it loses its name and nature in the complete separation of individuals. We come then to the conclusion that each convict is to be separated from his fellows.”[4]

The extent of isolation which each prisoner undergoes must be determined somewhat by the nature of his case and somewhat by the conditions and convenience of the prison. It is hardly possible for many modern prisons to have complete separation on account of the expense incurred, for this would mean that within the cell itself the prisoner must perform all labor, and that the cell shall be commodious enough to carry on this labor by himself, or else that he be given labor elsewhere alone. Such a system requires an increased amount of attendance.

At the Kansas penitentiary the system of solitary cell confinement at night and when off duty, and the silent associations of prisoners in groups during the day while at work and at meals, is now in vogue. Without doubt this association during the day carries with it evil influences which are in a measure lessened by the requirements of the law for ten hours of labor for all able-bodied prisoners.

Whatever system of classification is adopted the reform idea must be faithfully considered. There should be an ample opportunity for study and for work, that both physical and intellectual powers may receive development. It has been proved by long continued observation that the typical criminal is weak in body and in mind. He may have intellectual cunning developed to a considerable degree, and may be capable of great physical efforts for spasmodic periods, but he is not a well developed being either physically or mentally.[5] Hence his reform must frequently begin with physical discipline and this followed by mental training, or the two must be carried on together. In the Kansas penitentiary the law requires prisoners to work ten hours at labor. Consequently they have left, for study and general improvement, their evenings and Sundays. There is a school on Sunday for all who wish to attend. This is a very meagre showing for any systematic training with a view to permanent reform. It would seem that eight hours of labor per day is sufficient for able-bodied persons if any intellectual improvement is expected of them. In many instances it would be more profitable to spend even less time in routine labor and give better opportunity for mental discipline and general physical culture. Mental discipline brings a reform of intelligence, of knowledge and of judgment which are supremely necessary in the care of persons criminally disposed and in the prevention of crime. In this respect a careful classification of the inmates of every prison should be had, whatever be the system adopted, and each individual should have a treatment that best suits his case. Men are not reformed in groups and companies but by special influences brought to bear upon the individual. The Elmira reformatory has been a living application of this theory. This institution has been taken as a model not only for America but for the whole world, and at present represents the most successful institution for the reform of young criminals yet established. It makes no distinction between the prisoners within and the people without any further than is necessary on account of the difference in conditions.