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

[4] Tallack, Penological and Preventive Principles, p. 118.

[5] Criminology, McDonald, pp. 36-96.

When prisoners enter the Elmira reformatory they are given grade _two_ with the possibility of their falling to grade _three_ or rising to grade _one_. Each grade is clothed differently from the others, and in that respect a discrimination in clothing is shown between the different groups or prisoners within the prison rather than between those within and the people without. All attempts are here made possible to make men dwell upon the better things of life, to turn their whole attention to the development of what manhood is still within them, and thus transform the criminal into independent and self-asserting manhood.

But classification should not stop here. According to our principle each individual should be treated according to the character of his crime and the condition of his criminality, indeed, according to his own character. Sweeping laws which pass upon a great mass of criminals, that are made inflexible and indiscriminative, are the most valueless that can ever be instituted for the guidance of the warden of a prison. In his judgment should rest the determination of many things concerning prison discipline. A warden should be a person especially trained for his position by long practice and theoretical study. So far as possible he should be removed from political regime, and be continued in office during good behavior and competent administration. There should not be too many laws and rules instituted by boards of supervisors, which tend to hamper him. In Kansas the Board of Directors of the state prison make the rules for the government of the warden. Ordinarily this check upon administrative government may be wise, but to a well prepared and competent warden such laws are liable to prove irksome in the extreme. Even the statutes passed by the state ought to be sufficiently flexible to give large discretionary powers to the warden. Too many boards are a supreme nuisance to rational government. There is no greater mistake made than in the creation of a prison law which shall treat a thousand prisoners as one man, whether in regard to their food, or to the hours they shall work, or to the method of confinement, or the length of sentence, or to grade marks, or to the method which may be taken to reform them. Consequently the singling out of each individual as a character study with a desire to give him the full benefit of all helpful measures to reform him, and to place him in a way to make himself independent after he leaves the prison is, indeed, one of the prime factors in prison discipline. The method of classifying together individuals of the same character and degree of criminality, with a view to make them mutually helpful by conversation and association rather than to deteriorate their character has been tried in some instances but as a rule it has proved a failure. Nevertheless it does seem that something might be done in this way. At least, possibly those who have a life sentence should be classified together in the same group. If prisoners must work together during the day time each group could be placed by itself. If in any kind of association there is contamination either by words or looks or signs, a few prisoners of the same degree of criminality could be classified together, which without doubt will make fewer chances for those who are very evil in nature to degrade others. How far this may be carried with success can only be determined by those who will make of it a practical example with an intense desire and determination to succeed. At any rate, it may be affirmed that the classification of prisoners in groups can be carried on with great skill and a great deal of benefit, if the buildings are arranged for this purpose: different dining rooms, different apartments and reading rooms, different associations in every way. The departmental system would have this advantage, that sets of rules could be made for the government of each separate department and would thus more nearly meet the conditions and needs of each separate group of prisoners. But such a classification is urged only in cases where the solitary system is practically impossible. In close connection with this classification might be considered the question of hereditary treatment. Every prisoner who enters any prison whatever should be carefully studied as to his past history and present life, in order to ascertain his own nature and the elements of manhood within him which are possible of development. A careful record of every prisoner, his past life, the crimes he has committed, his education, his conditions and associations should be carefully considered. This record will enable those who have charge of prisoners to study their character, and not only enable them to manage them better as a disciplinary means, but also furnish a means for such reform as the prisoners are capable of. It may do more even than this, in the study of the influence of heredity in crime. There are those who hold that not much can be made out of the fact that criminal fathers are more apt to have criminal children than others. But no one who has made a careful inquiry into hereditary taints can question that there is a great tendency in hereditary crime. The subject has not been studied sufficiently far to give data enough to warrant us in drawing mathematical conclusions. But cases have been cited where criminals have married and intermarried and large numbers of children have become criminals through many generations. An interesting fact is to be noted here, however, that a large number of the so-called hereditary crimes arise out of existing conditions rather than from blood taint; thus a child whose parents are thieves, and the companions of whose parents are thieves, grows up with his early life biased in this direction; all about him are men engaged in these corrupt practices and the early life is impressed with the supposition that this is a normal state of affairs and he naturally grows up to follow the calling of his parents and neighbors, just as an individual who is brought up to know nothing but farming, and considers this the legitimate calling of his father and neighbors, would seem likely to take to it as a livelihood rather than to something else with which he is less familiar.

The investigations of such men as Charles Booth in London[6] would seem to indicate that crime arises chiefly out of conditions, examples, and habits, rather than from the assumption that men are born to crime through any inherent psychological tendency. In this it is not intended to show that heredity does not have a large influence in the development of crime. Statistics have been prepared to thoroughly substantiate the fact that heredity plays a great part in the development of the criminal.

[6] Life and Labor of the People of London, by Charles Booth, 3 vols.

“Of the inmates of Elmira reformatory 499, or 13.7 per cent. have been of insane or epileptic heredity. Of 233 prisoners at Auburn, New York, 23.03 per cent. were clearly of neurotic (insane, epileptic, etc.) origin; in reality many more. Virgilio found that 195 out of 266 criminals were affected by diseases that are usually hereditary. Rossi found five insane parents to seventy-one criminals, six insane brothers and sisters and fourteen cases of insanity among more distant relatives. Kock found morbid inheritance in 46 per cent. of criminals. Marro, who has examined the matter very carefully, found the proportion 77 per cent., and by taking into consideration the large range of abnormal characters in the parents, the proportion of criminals with bad heredity rose to 90 per cent. He found that an unusually large proportion of the parents had died from cerebro-spinal diseases and from phthisis. Sichard examining nearly 4,000 criminals in the prison of which he is director, found an insane, epileptic, suicidal and alcoholic heredity in 36.8, incendiaries 32.2 per cent. thieves, 28.7 sexual offenders, 23.6 per cent. sharpers. Penta found among the parents of 184 criminals only 4 or 5 per cent. who were quite healthy.”[7]

Such being the awful tendency of crime to breed crime, questions arising respecting the causes of crime ought to be a careful study by all persons interested in criminology or penology.

The question has often arisen, How will you find out correctly about the past history of individuals? Some conclude that, because prisoners are dishonest, there is no method by which you can find out about their past life or early conditions. A careful study of this question by men who are expert in handling criminals, has convinced the public that this may be done. Possibly as much of the record of the prisoner as is convenient to be obtained, should be procured by the court and sent to the warden with the sentence. If it could not, the warden then could ascertain through a commission the past history of each prisoner as he comes to him and a full record of his life, condition, habits, etc. If this was not complete, it could be verified from time to time or be changed from time to time, as facts developed later on. Perhaps no one has succeeded any better in this line than has Mr. Brockway, general superintendent of the Elmira reformatory. Mr. Brockway presents the subject in the following letter:

[7] Havelock Ellis, The Criminal, page 93.

F. W. BLACKMAR, ESQ., Lawrence, Kansas:

DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 21st. There is a mistaken impression abroad about the possibility of ascertaining from prisoners the truth on any subject. They are liars, in common with the remainder of the race not in prison. Perhaps more apparently so, but nevertheless they are not in this respect more untruthful than witnesses called to the stand in courts, witnesses who have never been and, probably, never will be in prison. My observation is, in the five investigations of my prison administration, had during long years of it, that the statements of prisoners before the several commissions were as truthful as are the statements of witnesses heard at trials outside.

The real difficulty in ascertaining the truth in the examination of prisoners is not very much more difficult than to ascertain the truth of any other common class of witnesses. It goes without saying that the examination of witnesses needs to be made by a competent, pains-taking examiner, before whom it is usually easily determined whether the witness is lying, prevaricating or making substantially a truthful statement. Moreover, it is possible by clues ascertained in the course of the examination from statements made by the prisoner,--names, dates, etc., to verify or disprove the accuracy of the statement he makes on his examination. There are some cases, not very many, where no clue can be had or dates or names ascertained. These, however, constitute such a small percentage of the prisoners examined, that it constitutes a class scarcely worth considering in this connection.

The particular purpose of inquiring into the early and antecedent history of the prisoners committed to this Reformatory during the last fifteen years has been to ascertain the character of the defects of the man himself, with a view to map out and conduct a course of treatment calculated to cure such defects or build up counteracting impulses and habitudes, as well as to determine the cause of the defects observed. It has been abundantly demonstrated by our experience here that the record made on the date of the prisoner’s admission, which is an abstract of the examination held by the General Superintendent, is substantially accurate,--accurate in all the essentials required to determine the real character of the man. I am sure, if it was deemed important to go back one or two generations for hereditary influences, we might ascertain enough from the prisoner on his examination to enable further inquiry outside which, together with the statements of the prisoner, would form very reliable data.

I am, dear sir, Very respectfully yours, Z. R. BROCKWAY, _Gen. Supt._

The following table shows something of Mr. Brockway’s method of classification as the result of his investigations:[8]

[8] See Annual Report of the Board of Managers of the Elmira Reformatory, 1889.

BIOGRAPHICAL STATISTICS OF INMATES.

1. Relating to their Parentage (Hereditary.)

Insanity or epilepsy in ancestry 499 or 13.7 per cent.

DRUNKENESS (_in Ancestry_). Clearly traced 1,408 or 38.7 per cent. Doubtful 403 or 11.1 Temperate 1,825 or 50.2

EDUCATION (_in Ancestry_). Without any education 495 or 13.6 per cent. Simply read and write 1,885 or 38.1 Ordinary common school or more 1,592 or 43.8 High School or more 164 or 4.5

PECUNIARY CIRCUMSTANCES (_in Ancestry_). Pauperized 173 or 4.8 per cent. No accumulation 2,801 or 77.0 Forehanded 662 or 18.2

OCCUPATION (_in Ancestry_). Servants and clerks 376 or 10.4 per cent. Common laborers 1,197 or 32.6 At mechanical work 1,343 or 36.9 With traffic 633 or 17.7

THE PROFESSIONS (_so-called_). Law 16 Medicine 36 Theology 10 Teaching 25 87 or 2.4 per cent.

2. Relating to Inmates Themselves (Environment). THE HOME LIFE.

(_a_) Character of Home Life. Positively bad 1,883 or 51.8 per cent. Fair (only) 1,453 or 39.9 Good 300 or 8.3

(_b_) Duration of Home Life. Left home previous to 10 years of age 187 or 5.2 per cent. Left home between 10 and 14 years of age 226 or 6.2 Left home soon after 14 years of age 1,121 or 30.8 At home up to time of crime 2,192 or 57.8 NOTE.--As to the 1534 homeless: Occupied furnished rooms in cities 390 or 25.4 per cent. Lived in cheap boarding houses (itinerant) 280 or 18.2 Lived with employer 331 or 21.6 Rovers and tramps 533 or 34.8

EDUCATIONAL. Without any education (illiterates) 710 or 19.5 per cent. Simply read and write (with difficulty) 1,814 or 49.9 Ordinary common school 979 or 26.9 High school or more 133 or 3.7

INDUSTRIAL.[9] Servants and clerks 1,041 or 28.6 per cent. Common laborers 1,853 or 51.0 At mechanical work 649 or 17.8 Idlers 93 or 2.6

CHARACTER OF ASSOCIATIONS. Positively bad 2,072 or 56.9 per cent. Not good 1,439 or 39.6 Doubtful 64 or 1.8 Good 61 or 1.7

NOMINAL RELIGIOUS FAITH OR TRAINING. Protestant 1,531 or 42.1 per cent. Roman Catholic 1,667 or 45.8 Hebrew 207 or 5.7 None 231 or 6.4

[9] It should be stated that the above who claimed some occupation are, as a rule, not regularly employed, nor steady reliable workmen.

The study of physical, mental and moral characteristics will lead us to other determinations and will show in physical health that the prisoners are as a rule not much, if any, below the average of people at large. It will also show that the majority of them not accustomed to regular work or employment are not capable of doing as much labor or enduring as much constant physical fatigue as would the same body of men who are not criminals taken from the common ranks of the people. So as to mental characteristics, we can urge that the criminal intellect has not been keen enough to take proper rank with the average mind. It is a fact, however, that many criminals are very shrewd and intellectually keen. Doubtless something could be said about the quality of such intellect and its special characteristics. It is the intellect of a coarse nature and not cultured, refined, or properly trained in the aggregate. The well developed mind, balanced in every particular, is rare among criminals. It will be seen, however, that a defect in the moral nature is in most instances a secret cause of the crime. Moral insensibility seems to be the common characteristic of a large proportion of prisoners. It is indeed too true with many of them that their conscience consists merely in the humiliation of being caught. Dwell as they may upon past deeds, the great fault of their own, as far as they view it, is in the fact that they were caught in the act and apprehended and punished. This moral insensibility is found in all grades and degrees, from that of a complete lack of moral symptoms to those of a highly sensitive moral nature.

Of the 4,000 criminals who have been through the reformatory at Elmira, 36.2 per cent showed on admission positively no susceptibility to moral impressions; only 23.4 per cent were ordinarily susceptible.[10]

[10] The Criminal, p. 139.

The following tables, taken from the report of the general superintendent of the Elmira reformatory for 1889, may be found interesting. It must be observed that the majority of these prisoners are young and all of them under the age of 30.

CONDITION AS OBSERVED ON ADMISSION.

PHYSICAL. (_a_) As to health: Debilitated or diseased 200 or 5.5 per cent. Somewhat impaired 501 or 8.3 Good health 3,135 or 86.2

(_b_) As to quality: Low or coarse 916 or 25.2 per cent. Medium 1,354 or 37.2 Good 1,366 or 37.6

MENTAL. (_a_) Natural capacity: Deficient 73 or 2.0 per cent. Fair (only) 789 or 21.7 Good 2,300 or 63.2 Excellent 474 or 13.1 (_b_) Culture: None 1,572 or 43.2 per cent. Very slight 1,040 or 28.6 Ordinary 916 or 25.2 Much 108 or 3.0

MORAL. (_a_) Susceptibility to moral impressions now (estimated): Positively none 1,318 or 36.2 per cent. Possibly some 1,310 or 36.1 Ordinarily susceptible 851 or 23.4 Specially susceptible 157 or 4.3 (_b_) Moral sense, even such as shown under the examination, either filial affection, sense of shame, or sense of personal loss: Absolutely none 1,794 or 49.3 per cent. Possibly some 1,112 or 30.6 Ordinarily sensitive 553 or 15.2 Specially sensitive 177 or 4.9

Without doubt this is a better showing by far than can be had in any ordinary prison. Auburn contains a different class of criminals than is found at Elmira. So, also, for the older prisons of Europe, there are more _recidivistes_, or habitual criminals in these prisons. In the West there appears to be fewer of the habitual class and more of the accidental class in proportion than are found in older countries of denser population. Yet much of a helpful nature could be had by a more careful study of individual characteristics of criminals than is at present carried on. This means more time, more help and more expense, but in the long run it would amply pay.