Part 2

Notwithstanding the pride reasonably inspired by the flattering evidence of his success, it is one of the most creditable reminiscences connected with the professional career of Mr. H., that instead of resting upon what he had accomplished, instead of reluctantly yielding to the evidence of progress in Europe, he was prompt to seek and to employ in his own later designs, whatever new details he found to be sufficiently recommended by theoretical or experimental evidence. The funds at his disposal for the erection of county jails, were not adequate to the most perfect elaboration of his own, or other conceptions; but it may be seen that when called upon, as he was not long after the completion of the Dauphin county prison, to build one with forty cells for the county of Berks, in Pennsylvania; he availed himself of the opportunity to introduce some of the most recent conveniences of arrangement. In Lancaster county, where his services were next required, he exhibited the same professional interest. The prison of this county had not been long occupied, when he was summoned from his career of public usefulness. He died suddenly at his residence in Philadelphia, on the 28th day of March last.

We have, though necessarily in a brief and imperfect manner, adverted to the peculiar claims of Mr. Haviland, to the grateful recollection of every friend of the separate discipline; because in the progress of events, it may have happened that some of our readers have lost sight of that record of the “early and bad state,” which is requisite to judge rightly of his merits as the leader towards the present “improved state” of prison construction. Those who shall hereafter witness signal triumphs of benevolence and skill, to which his labors have opened the way, may--and if the fortune which has awaited even the most eminent of reformers shall not be reversed, probably will--fail to conceive the full measure of his contributions towards the crowning result; but while a tradition survives amongst his associates in prison reform, and their successors in Pennsylvania, his name will not cease to be mentioned with honorable distinction.

Amongst the memorials which he has left in other departments of his art, we might refer to the United States Naval Hospital at Norfolk, Virginia; and the Pennsylvania State Lunatic Asylum, recently finished at the capital of this State; both of which institutions manifest in a high degree the industrious preparation, the sound judgment, the economy, and the practical skill, which he employed upon his designs. Regarding his function as that of an exponent of the knowledge which enlightened observation had gathered from experience, his first step was to acquaint himself with the best conceptions of those for whom he was to interpret by physical structure; and he wrought with fidelity to express those conceptions by the most fitting external fabric; but our limits compel us to abstain from a notice of these and similar works.

In conclusion, it must be added, that while witnessing the establishment of his reputation, in a manner rarely exampled in the history of his profession in modern times, especially where the object has not been to minister to the wonder and delight of the multitude, Mr. Haviland maintained a singular modesty of deportment and of speech, even amongst those who knew most intimately the interest which his success had excited in his own bosom. He was frank and amiable in his intercourse, and liberal in the instruction of those who sought his advice upon the important subject of his principal thoughts. He has left to his survivors and to posterity the example of an unpretending, but eminently useful career.

At a meeting of the Philadelphia Prison Society, held soon after his decease, the President, in appropriate terms, announced the decease of Mr. Haviland; and the following resolutions were unanimously adopted, and ordered to be printed in the Society’s Journal.

* * * * *

_Resolved_, That the members of the society have learned, with sincere regret, the loss of their late fellow-laborer, John Haviland, whose efforts to develop the architecture of the separate system of imprisonment, have contributed greatly to its convenient administration in Pennsylvania, and to the establishment of the principal features of its methods of construction in other parts of the world in which it has been introduced.

_Resolved_, That the society desire to record their appreciation of the zeal and fidelity with which their deceased friend sought to promote by suitable architectural means, those enlightened and humane opinions upon which the separate system is founded; as well as to introduce where the opportunity was afforded to him, for its better administration, whatever improvements were suggested by experience, whether at home or abroad.

_Resolved_, That the President be requested to communicate to the family of the deceased, the sincere and respectful sympathy felt by the members of the society, in relation to the recent bereavement.

ART. II.--THE PENNSYLVANIA SYSTEM.--DR. GIVEN’S REPORT.

Notwithstanding the simplicity and unity of the principle on which the Pennsylvania system of prison discipline is based, there is often a vagueness of opinion and a looseness of expression concerning it that surprises us. What is the principle? It is CONVICT-SEPARATION--neither more nor less. We hold, with the inspectors of the English prisons, that “the separation of one prisoner from another is the only sound basis on which a reformatory prison discipline can be established with any reasonable hope of success.” We believe the reformation of prisoners can be, and in very many instances has been, accomplished _in consequence of such a separation_, which would not have been, and could not be accomplished without it.

Some persons have no faith in the reformation of convicts, under any process. With such the only inquiry is for the cheapest method of imprisonment, without reference to moral or physical consequences. Some are very credulous, and look upon the worst rogues as quite reclaimable under the influence of personal kindness and Christian counsel. We apprehend that if the probability of prison-reformation may not be determined precisely by the degree to which the offender is separated from criminal associations and suggestions, it depends mainly upon it. And it is our deliberate and long-settled conviction, that (other things being equal) the best appointed system of discipline will be of very little avail in its reformatory power, where convict-association, in any form or degree, is tolerated. This is not a partisan opinion. It has been entertained and expressed by many who are by no means committed to the separate system, as such. There is an obvious fitness in the idea, which can neither be gainsayed nor resisted.

We have said that the fundamental doctrine of the Pennsylvania system of prison discipline is embodied in one compound word--CONVICT-SEPARATION.--How can we conceive of a “_modification_” of this elementary principle? It must be adopted as a whole or rejected as a whole. The structure of the building, in which the separate principle is carried out, may be modified. The method of proceeding in the institution, as it respects instruction, whether in letters or trades, or as it respects privations, indulgencies and punishments may be modified. The cells, the occupations, the diet, the mode of heating and ventilating, &c., may all be modified, but the principle of separating the convicts one from the other, is, or it is not, the basis of the system. It is not susceptible of modification. If separation is the principle, it is one thing,--if association is the principle, it is another thing.--The _degree_ of association or of separation, is not involved.

When, therefore, we are told of “a necessity for modifying, to a certain extent, the Pennsylvania system, by allowing a certain class of convicts to be associated” for any purpose, or for any period of time, the phraseology is open to misapprehension at least, if not to animadversion.

The phrase “_modifying_ to a certain extent” is doubtless inadvertently used in such cases for the phrase “_abandoning_ to a certain extent.” Words are significant of ideas, and ambiguity in the former, necessarily leads to ambiguity in the latter. If we speak of the associate system, as “modified” by the occasional separation of a stubborn class of convicts, or of the separate system, as modified by the occasional association of an imbecile class, we soon confound association and separation, and actually have neither the one nor the other. We apprehend that this is the very position to which some of the opposers of convict-separation would not be unwilling to see it brought. Indeed, some who profess to be staunch advocates of separation, have conceded (inconsiderately, as we think) that each plan has its own advantages, and that the best system would be the product of a combination.

As at present advised we cannot consent to this view. Few evils arise, under any system of government, for which there is not a choice of remedies; and if it is made evident that under the application of a sound principle of prison-discipline, cases occur in which the legitimate ends of punishment are defeated, or at least not answered, the first question would be whether these cases are numerous and important enough to impair our confidence in the principle; or whether the exceptions are not necessarily incident to any general system, and such as cannot be provided against; or whether the remedy, if practicable at all, may not be applied without any infringement of the general principle. A compromise between two methods of convict management, so radically and essentially diverse as separation and association, seems to us entirely fanciful.

These general observations must serve to introduce a very brief notice of the Report of the Physician of the Eastern State Penitentiary for the six months ending July 1, 1851. That day closed seven years of laborious and faithful service by Dr. Given in this important institution. His reports, during that period, have been frequently noticed in the pages of our Journal, and have contributed essentially, not only to the improvement of the particular institution under his care, but to the general interests of humanity. Few if any documents of this class, embody a larger amount of valuable information, or are entitled to more consideration.

The author not being prepared to serve the interests of a party or a clique, nor to defend a favorite theory, his reports have uniformly taken independent ground, and must be regarded as the honest record of the results of professional experience and observation.

We understand the present and final report of Dr. G., as unequivocally and emphatically favorable to _convict-separation_. That there are some prisoners on whom it bears with peculiar severity is a matter of course. No species of punishment is exempt from such inequalities. They are less prevalent, however, under the separate discipline than under any other, from the very fact that the isolation of the prisoner from his fellows, allows us to vary the minuter conditions of the discipline in peculiar cases, without exciting murmuring and discontent among less favored parties. That a relaxation of rigid discipline in an individual case, no matter how peculiar, if it becomes notorious works wide-spread mischief, is fully shown in the experience of the English prisons.[2]

We do not understand Dr. Given to maintain that the class of convicts, whose mental weakness unfits them for the discipline of separation, would be any better off in a congregate prison, unless they were allowed “to converse with hardly any restriction.” So that we are left to conclude, that some peculiar method of treatment, embraced in neither of the prevailing systems must be devised to suit the specific case of weak-minded culprits, in a separate prison, or we must expect them to become deranged. Now we humbly conceive, that the remedy for the supposed grievance in such cases is in the hands of the court, and should be applied in the terms of the sentence, and not in the process of its execution. The mental vigor of a culprit is as legitimately a subject of investigation, as his moral habits and physical constitution. If he borders on that state of imbecility which would exempt him from moral responsibility, the shade of guilt in which he is involved will be scarcely perceptible, and the punishment would of course be proportionably light. If on the other hand, the character and method of his crime indicate ingenuity in contriving and vigor in executing his criminal purposes, though he may be below par in his intellectual capacity, he must take his chance with other offenders, who may be better able to endure the retribution than himself. It is so all the world over. The punishment which many sins carry in themselves, does not adapt itself very nicely to individual constitutions and temperaments. One slave of the intoxicating cup may have far greater powers of resisting the temptation to indulgence than his comrade, yet they are found wallowing in the same gutter. Men of limited capacity have a much harder struggle for their daily bread than their more capable neighbors, but in the event of their feloniously taking what does not belong to them, we do not find special laws are enacted to meet their case. So in families, schools, and larger communities, general laws are established which operate unequally, but are on the whole salutary and wise; and so must it be in the discipline of every prison. The same degree of restraint, privation or punishment bears much more severely on some than on others, and while humanity requires us to alleviate, as far as possible, the miseries of public prisons, it can hardly expect us to forego the eminent advantages of a system of discipline, because it does not adapt itself to every grade of intellect and education. No part of the machinery of civil government is capable of such a nice adjustment.

But assuming that provision should be made for the necessities of convicts, who lack ordinary mental vigor, and whose condition is easily detected by an experienced observer, we have the unqualified testimony of Dr. G., that with such provision, the Pennsylvanian system intelligently administered for moderate periods is entirely safe for mind and body. This opinion, after seven successive years of close, daily observation, by a resident physician, is certainly very conclusive. As to the phrase, “moderate periods,” it is well known that our Journal has uniformly advocated a reduction in the terms of imprisonment for by far the larger portion of crimes,--connected however with efficient checks upon the pardoning power.

But Dr. G. finds among the convicts of the Eastern State Penitentiary, as he would find in any other similar prison, “a certain proportion who have not sufficient mental vigor to resist the enervating tendencies of the discipline.” Upon examining the report for a more particular description of the class, he had in view, we find, that “in many of them the mental deficiency is so slight, as hardly to challenge casual observation, or to prevent them from following successfully the ordinary pursuits of life.” Dr. G. would not, therefore, exempt these persons from responsibility for their crimes. But how shall they be treated in a separate prison? What is needful to “enable them to resist the enervating tendencies of the discipline,” or in other words, how, in administering the discipline, shall we provide for that lack of mental vigor which exposes them to suffer under it? Dr. G. replies, “By sufficient social intercourse with qualified officers to preserve the natural strength of their minds.” Is this better than “associating them in workshops during the day under vigilant supervision, as in congregate prisons?” Dr. G. replies, “Yes, infinitely preferable.” Why then is not this simple counteracting agency employed, wherever the evil is supposed to exist? Dr. G. replies, “The expense of such an arrangement will, I fear, render it impossible.” And what is the expense? The report does not furnish any estimate, nor have we the means of forming one. But of one thing we feel confident, viz., that if the addition to the corps of officers of one or two men of suitable qualifications for the purpose, would be the means of perfecting the system of punishment, or of securing, in a higher degree, the humane purposes of the government in inflicting it, it will not be withheld. We should be slow to believe such a measure would fail, for so paltry a consideration as one or two thousand dollars a year, which would be the outside of the expense.

Suppose it were clearly the duty and interest of the government (and its duty is always its interest, as it is that of individuals) to provide for the unfortunate class of convicts to which Dr. G. refers, it would become a question how far it would be needful to abridge the average term of imprisonment at present suffered, in order to avoid the mischief which his report discloses. For it will be observed, that there is quite a difference of opinion as to the time within which the supposed injurious effects of seclusion are developed. Even the opponents of separation have generally regarded a sentence of from twelve to eighteen months as entirely safe. Dr. G. very properly considers the age of the convict as entitled to much consideration in determining the period of his confinement; and we should be quite disposed, at first, to fall in with his opinion, that “unless for the gravest offences, the sentence of minors should seldom exceed a single year;” and yet when we look around us and observe the boldness, the ingenuity and the malignity which often characterize the criminal acts of minors in our times, we can scarcely persuade ourselves that extraordinary lenity could be safely shown to them. A severer discipline in an institution that should receive them at an earlier stage of their career, might often check their criminal propensities, and put them upon a praiseworthy course; but when they become reckless of life, and property, and public peace, and boast themselves in feats of iniquity which matured convicts would scarcely attempt to excel, we should be slow to relax the rigour of punishment, except in cases of manifest infirmity of body or mind.

“In the second year of imprisonment, the bodily and mental vigor of convicts generally begins to decline, though they may struggle on for an indefinite period, without having any actual disease developed. In all cases, but more especially when the sentences range between two and ten years, the prisoner should be closely watched; and when the slightest symptom of failing strength appears, he should be immediately put to some outdoor employment, and there kept until his health would be re-established, when he could be again returned to his cell. If this principle would be strictly acted upon, it would render the longest sentence comparatively harmless.”

We are gratified with such clear and unequivocal testimony to the safety of convict-separation; for we look upon the resort to out-of-door exercise, in special cases, as so perfectly practicable and so entirely in keeping with the principle of the system, that we could scarcely reckon it as a condition or exception. It is of the same character with a precaution respecting air, apparel, bathing, &c. Indeed we do not suppose Dr. G. himself has a particle of doubt, that all needful out-of-door exercise can be given to every convict whose health requires it, as easily and as consistently with the most rigid separation as an extra blanket, or a new article of diet.

It will be observed that in the extract just made from Dr. G.’s report, the _second_ year of imprisonment is designated as that in which the bodily and mental vigor of convicts generally begins to decline, and he also mentions those whose sentences range from two to ten years, as “requiring to be closely watched.” From which we infer, that in his opinion there is little danger to be apprehended from the _first_ year’s seclusion; that in the _second_ year there is no danger to be apprehended to the great mass of prisoners, but only to those who have “not sufficient mental vigor to resist the enervating tendencies of the discipline,” and who generally begin at that period to decline in body and mind; and as to convicts whose “sentences range from two to ten years, they should be closely watched,” &c.

Our general impression of the weight of authority on this subject, at home and abroad, would coincide with the opinion here expressed; but upon turning to the fable which is annexed to Dr. G.’s report we find, to our surprise, that in seven of the eight insane cases of 1851, the average period of prison-life at which the disorder appeared, was less than eight months; viz., one at four months, one at five, one at seven, one at eight, two at ten, and one at eleven months. In the eighth case the development of disease was postponed for three years and more! Only two of the eight were minors; five were whites, two mulattoes, and one black.

We need not question at all the soundness of Dr. G.’s opinion, nor the correctness of his facts. The conclusion to which they unite in constraining us however, is that the cause of insanity is not well-assigned. It is quite possible that the present condition of the prisoner, with all its antecedent anxiety and excitement and its prospective severity, combine to disclose, or give form and definiteness to a morbid condition of mind or body or both, which might not have occurred at all had he escaped detection or conviction; or which might not have taken that specific form under a different system of discipline; or which might be corrected by seasonable and judicious attention. That symptoms of a deranged state were discoverable so soon after commitment, and without any peculiarly exciting cause, seems to forbid the idea of attributing it wholly or chiefly to a denial of convict-association. And we apprehend, that if those very cases were at once transferred to Auburn or Sing-Sing, without the slightest change in their mental or bodily state, the parties would take their places at once in the shop-gang, and render their master-contractor as good an account of a day’s work as any of their comrades! They would be just as insane there, as in the Eastern State Penitentiary, but their eccentricities would not be likely to receive special investigation or care, and hence would never be reported as insane cases. The reports from congregate prisons fully warrant this position.

The careful reader of Dr. Given’s report cannot fail to see that his humane and honorable sympathies have led him, as we have already intimated, to overlook the inevitable necessity of inequalities in the operation of general laws. If he says, “we can rest satisfied to restrict the application of our system to those to whom it is applicable, I believe there will be quite as little insanity among them as if they were associated.” But to whom is it applicable? To all, except those whose mental character renders it unsafe to subject them to it. How many of this class are there? Why it is so small as to “admit of the most accurate supervision,” so that “the corrupting influences of association,” (if adopted,) “will be materially diminished.” But what is the number in units, tens or hundreds? Why last year it was eight in an aggregate of four hundred and forty-six! And may we regard this as the “certain proportion of convicts, who have not sufficient mental vigor to resist the enervating tendencies of our system?” Eight in four hundred and forty-six!