Page images
PDF
EPUB

Commission, composed of representatives nominated by the Governments of a number of countries. This body deals with questions of penal law and its administration generally, and is not limited to prison matters. It is this Commission which, at regular intervals, directs public attention to the subjects with which it deals by summoning an International Congress in the capital city of one of the countries represented upon it. We draw attention below to some of the chief points in the resolutions.

In Section 1, Legislation: the Second Resolution supported the view that short sentences of imprisonment are undesirable, and that alternatives for such sentences should be found as far as possible, especially by developing the probation system and extending the power of Courts to deal with offences by fines and to grant facilities for payment.

The Third Resolution, which was only reached after a long debate on the first principles of the indeterminate sentence, represents a compromise between the view, widely held abroad, that the indeterminate sentence should have no maximum limit; and the view hitherto held by Parliament in this country that it should. A number of the delegates and members considered that an indeterminate sentence which had a maximum limit was not really indeterminate; and that a persistent offender, once placed under control, should understand clearly that he would have no means of returning to free life save by his own conduct. General agreement on this point was not reached. It will be recollected that the Prevention of Crime Bill, as introduced into Parliament in 1908, provided for "detention during His Majesty's pleasure," and that the ten years' maximum limit, which now obtains, was introduced during the passage of the Bill through the House of Commons. Opinion on this difficult point varies with the importance ascribed on the one hand to the thorough protection of society; and on the other to the liberty of the subject, to the view that the penalty should vary with the crime, and to a man's conduct in prison as a guide to what his conduct will be on release.

The debate on this point whether or no there ought to be a maximum limit overshadowed the real object of the question, which was to inquire whether the indeterminate sentence might not properly be applied to the habitual petty offender. The resolution finally passed, however, did in its first paragraph indicate the general usefulness of the indeterminate sentence as a measure of social defence. Parliament in this country has hitherto declined to apply the principle of the indeterminate sentence to persons who continually commit petty offences; but there are some arguments in favour of such treatment, especially in the cases of certain recidivist women to whom we have referred from time to time in these Reports.

The views of the Congress on the other two subjects dealt with by the legislative section are not wholly adaptable to the principles of British law and administration. As regards the first Resolution British law prefers to be lenient, where leniency is merited, by giving Courts of Justice a wide power of dismissing cases. It thinks it best that offenders should be brought before a Court, and doubts the wisdom of entrusting an administrative authority with the right to say that this shall not be done, in any but those small cases in which the police necessarily exercise a certain discretion.

The fourth Resolution, besides affirming the need for a Court to have full information about an offender before passing sentence, laid down a series of qualifications for undertaking criminal judicial work, which are far removed from traditional British practice, and are not likely to be adopted in this country, at any rate to their full extent. However, though some of these proposals sound extravagant to our ears, there are others which are worthy of consideration, particularly those relating to the obtaining of information with regard to the offender, and not merely with regard to the offence. The suggestion that judicial authorities should make themselves familiar by personal visits with the prisons and other institutions to which they have power to commit, is one for which the British system already allows full scope.

As regards the offender's condition, the Medical Officers of English prisons, especially the larger ones, do at the present time investigate the mental condition of large numbers of persons charged with offences, and report the results to the Courts, both Summary Courts and Courts of trial, which have to deal with. these persons. In many cases these investigations are extended to the personal and family histories as well.

The Congress, in recommending that full information of every kind should be obtained about an offender before he is dealt with, may be taken to have had in view offences which are at least moderately grave.

More than nine-tenths of the offences annually dealt with by the Courts in this country are minor matters (met usually by fines) which clearly do not call for such exhaustive investigations, even if it were possible to make them.

In the graver cases, however, being those in which deprivation of liberty in some form for a not inconsiderable period is likely to be required, full knowledge of the offender's personal and social history and present condition is always a real advantage, and often a necessity, to the Court which has to deal with him.

In this connection the last paragraph of the resolution is interesting, proposing a discussion in camera of the appropriate treatment, after the conviction has taken place in open Court.

In the second Section, Administration, the proper arrangements for the detention of habitual criminals under indeterminate sentence were first discussed, and the opinion of the Congress substantially approved the system in force at the English establishment of Camp Hill (Resolution 1).

Stress was laid in the second resolution on the importance of physical and mental examinations of both accused and convicted persons, not only to enable a right decision to be reached with regard to the individual offender, but also for the general scientific purpose of determining the origins of anti-social conduct.

The third resolution, which deals with classification, is interesting, as supporting the views often expressed by prison Governors and other experienced prison authorities, to the effect that separation of classes cannot be carried out effectively within one building. To make it effective, classes of prisoners must be placed in different buildings. Further, that in a large prison the individual treatment of the prisoners is impossible; and that there should be a limit to the size of the establishments.

The fourth resolution supported another opinion held by prison authorities in this country, namely, that some regular system of money payments is needed to produce the best results from the labour of prisoners. No systems of privileges, or of remission of sentence for good conduct and industry, can have the same effect as a properly regulated system of payment based on speed and efficiency.

Such a system, however, entails measuring the individual prisoner's daily output in all the industries, whereas at present the daily output is only ascertained with exactness in some of the simpler industries where this can easily be done. Το measure individual output in all the industries would probably require additional staff. Some experiments of this kind are, however, being made.

The third Section under the heading "Prevention," affirmed in its first resolution, which relates to the conduct of probation. and after-care, the principle that supervision should be provided for all persons put on probation or conditionally released. It may be assumed that the Congress did not mean to include, under the head of probation, that class of cases in which binding over the offender not to repeat the offence is the appropriate course, and the supervision of a probation officer is not required. After-care, the Congress thought, should be conducted either by private societies under State supervision, or by special officials appointed for the purpose.

The second Resolution, which advocated direct intercommunication between the police authorities of the different countries to enable them to cope with international criminals; the third, on the subject of film censorship; and the fifth, on the

i

subject of boarding out delinquent or defective children; call for no comment by us; though the last two are matters of interest to the Young Offenders' Committee.

The fourth Resolution, however, is of considerable interest to a prison administration. It states that penal establishments are not suitable for adults of abnormal mentality showing dangerous tendencies, i.e. persons who are feeble-minded or mentally deficient; but that these should be sent to non-penal institutions for proper treatment; further, that such persons should not again be let loose upon society without close supervision.

The resolutions of an International Congress are necessarily drawn in wide terms. Such a body, representing the systems of many different countries, must limit itself to the expression of general principles. Subject to this limitation, the ninth International Congress expressed itself clearly.. It affirmed the principles that full information, both personal and social, should be obtained about an offender before the appropriate treatment or penalty is decided; and that the law should leave scope for the Court to adapt the treatment or penalty to the individual, and should not too narrowly limit its powers.

The Congress was clear, too, that short sentences of imprisonment should, as far as possible, be abolished by the development of suitable alternatives; and that, at the other end of the scale, the indeterminate sentence should be regarded as a valuable means of social defence against the habitual offender. So far as it touched on matters of prison administration, it substantially endorsed the views held by the British authorities on treatment and classification; and on the segregation of the mentally abnormal.

VII.-LOCAL PRISONS.

The Object in View.-Readers of these reports are aware that it is the policy of the administration to carry out its duty of protecting society by training offenders, as far as possible, for citizenship; and that every change in the prison system is directed to that end. It is only for those who happen to read a single report that we provide a brief re-statement.

Prisons exist to protect society, and they can only give efficient protection in one of two ways, either (a) by removing the anti-social person from the community altogether or for a very long period; or (b) by bringing about some change in him. Any general application of the first method would not be sup ported by public opinion. The prison administration must therefore do its utmost to apply the second; that is to say, to restore the man who has been imprisoned to ordinary standards of citizenship, so far as this can be done within the limits of his sentence. Unless some use can be made of the period of imprisonment to change the anti-social outlook of the offender

(23748)

B

and to bring him into a more healthy frame of mind towards his fellow citizens, he will, on leaving the prison gates after a few weeks or months, again become a danger, or at any rate a nuisance. He may, indeed, be worse than before, if the only result has been to add a vindictive desire for revenge on society to the selfish carelessness of the rights of others which he brought into prison with him.

The change can be, and is, effected in a good many cases by vigorous industrial, mental, and moral training, pursued on considered lines by officers, teachers, and prison visitors of character and personality. The effect of such training, properly conducted, is to induce self-respect, to lessen self-conceit (characteristic of many prisoners on first reception) and to arouse some sense of personal responsibility. Failures there are, and always will be, but the records of successes justify the system and the efforts of those who work to carry it out.

Classification.-Classification has long been recognised as the first step to be taken to remedy the drawbacks of a general mixed prison. Classification of prisoners in each prison has now been carried as far as is possible within the limits of the establishment. What remains is to classify prisons; and this, apart from any change in the law, is marked out as the next line of advance. The obstacle to the classification of prisons is the expense of the journies. The cheapest method is for all offenders of whatever kind to serve their sentences in the prison nearest to the Court which sentenced them; and in present circumstances financial considerations may prevent the general introduction of any other system for some time to come. Two experiments in classifying prisons are, however, now being made -one at Wakefield, and one at Wormwood Scrubs. To that at Wakefield we referred last year.

At that prison an attempt is being made to carry out a real scheme of training by eliminating the short sentenced men, and limiting the prison to men with sentences of six months or more. Length of sentence is, however, the only criterion, generally speaking, that it has been found possible to apply. Men convicted for the first time, and men with previous convictions, have to be received alike; though they are trained in separate classes, each with its own system of progressive stages.

Wormwood Scrubs, on the other hand, has been set apart for men who have not been in prison before. The object here is to enable the training to be carried out in a better spirit by eliminating the so-called prison atmosphere, a thing well known but less easy to define; which can only be described, in general terms, as the characteristic attitude of the habitual offender towards society, which is so readily communicated from him to

« PreviousContinue »