THE AMERICAN JAIL PROBLEM
Frederick H. Wines, Secretary Illinois State Board of Administration.
[If the discussion which has followed the meeting of the International Prison Congress in Washington last October has brought anything clearly to the surface, it is that the county jail system of this country has succeeded in turning upon itself the spot-light of Europe. Why should we not take advantage of this borrowed illumination to become familiar with our own problem?—Editor.]
The following extracts give the gist of an interesting study of our jail system which was read before the last Maryland State conference of charities, and recently published inThe Institution Quarterlyof the Board of Administration of Illinois.
“So much has been said, and so well said, regarding the folly and iniquity of the county jail system in the United States, that it seems like a waste of breath to discuss it further.... No fault can be found with any one jail, that may not be found with scores or hundreds of others. There are jails that are too large, and jails that are too small; insecure jails, unsanitary jails, jails without light, jails without heat, jails without ventilation, filthy jails, jails that are not properly governed, palatial jails, and jails that are not fit for occupation as stables or pigstyes. I suppose that I have personally inspected nearly or quite one-fourth of all the jails in this country, and my attention has been drawn to every form of defect and disgrace by which a county prison can he disfigured.... But in what forum is the case to be tried? Who is to exercise the necessary jurisdiction? Where is the jury charged with the duty of rendering a verdict? Who will select the jurors? and when? and where?...
“It is not difficult, where the conditions in some county jail are shown to be shameful and intolerable, to arouse local sentiment in favor of some measure of improvement. If it is overcrowded, build an addition. If it is filthy, inaugurate a general house-cleaning. If it is unsafe, make it stronger. If it is unsanitary, it is easy to supply artificial light and heat, or to put in sewerage, water and modern plumbing. With these and other changes, it will do. If not, or if the sheriff needs a fine official residence, and the town wants a handsome public building and profitable contracts for its erection, then it may be possible to bring about the construction of a new prison.
“But what does all this really amount to? In all the essentials of good prison organization and management, the new jail is no better than the old one; and the money spent upon it is simply an addition to the immense investment in a wretched and indefensible system. Instead of being an aid to reform, it is an obstacle to reform. It increases the weight of the already too heavy burden resting on the shoulders of the friends and advocates of the thorough and effectual reconstruction of our existing prison system, from the top to the bottom.
“It would therefore seem to be high time for a radical change in our method of attack. We must adopt a new plan of campaign, which will aim not at the capture here and there of an outwork, so much as at the occupation and destruction of the innermost citadel.
“... Does any one imagine that the abuses at which I have barely hinted could long survive, if all convicted offenders, major and minor, misdemeanants as well as felons, were in the custody of state instead of county officials? The initial result would be a diminution in the number of prisons. There are many times too many local prisons. Some of them stand empty from year to year; some are overcrowded, at least during the weeks immediately preceding a term of the criminal court. The needless multiplication of jails entails a heavy pecuniary burden upon the people.
“The massing of sentenced prisoners would admit of their classification, and of the introduction of reformatory methods of dealing with them—useful, healthy occupation both for body and mind, and some measure of education and religious influence.
“The officers in immediate charge would naturally be men of higher grade, their tenure of office would be more secure, and they would have no other duties to distract their attention from their proper work. They would have little time or opportunity for pernicious political activity. They could be better paid.
“The corrupt fee system, under which it is to the pecuniary interest of some official that arrests should be multiplied, would go by the board.
“We might hope to see the last of iron cages, and foreigners could no longer satirize our prisons under the generic term of menageries. The state would avail itself of the services of competent architects, and traveling salesmen would not be able to sell to unsuspecting and simple-minded commissioners and supervisors their illusory spectacles in shagreen cases.
“In a word, we should have an opportunity to replace irresponsible by responsible prison management, and competency would in time take the place of incompetency.
“This proposal implies, of course, the complete and final disseverance of the prison for men convicted of crime from the house of detention for those awaiting trial, whose guilt is yet unproven, and who may be innocent. From the days of Plato to the present moment, that has been a cardinal maxim of prison reform. The jail system has prevented the realization of this ideal.
“It is not the house of correction, but the house of detention, which constitutes the most refractory element in this complex problem. Let us lay that portion of it aside, for the moment, and consider the other, which is easier. There is no practical obstacle to the establishment of one or more state houses of correction in any state, except the indifference of the legislature; and that can be overcome by a campaign of education....
“The point is to insist that the condemned misdemeanant, like the condemned felon, shall be committed to the custody of the state, which alone shall have the power to execute upon him, the sentence of the court. This simple measure may be relied upon to do away with one-half of our present grounds of complaint.
“I have no fear that, this first step taken, the state will not, sooner or later, see its way clear to take a second, and a third, and as many other steps as may from time to time appear to be expedient and practicable. ‘I do not ask to see the distant scene; one step enough for me.’
“I confess that I do not see how, at present, it is possible to dispense with the county jail as a house of detention. Ill-adapted as it is to that use, if we gain nothing, we at least lose nothing by conservatism as to this point. Consider the absolute necessity for having a place of confinement for prisoners awaiting trial. Consider the enormous cost of providing a new and improved house of detention in each county. If it should be said that so many houses of detention are not requisite, that the state might be redistricted for judicial purposes, or that prisoners might be carried back and forth between counties, remember that the witnesses would also have to be transported, at great expense. Neither of these suggestions is likely favorably to impress a practical mind. Possibly there are jails which might be remodelled, so as to serve reasonably well as houses of detention only; and there may be counties in which the present jails should be condemned as nuisances, and houses of detention, properly planned for that exclusive use, might there be built. These are details which may be left to take care of themselves. Why put off doing what we can do, because there are other things that we can not do? The time may come when we can do more. Why advocate reforms which are sure to provoke such a united opposition as to insure their defeat in advance?
“On this subject, however, there is one suggestion that may well be made. The population of our minor prisons might be materially reduced, if a more liberal use were made of the constitutional right of bail. The purpose of temporary release under bond is twofold; to relieve the public and to relieve the prisoner. It is expected that the courts will exercise this power in a liberal spirit, and they do. Some of them are authorized to release prisoners on their own recognizance, at the discretion of the court. Every court should possess this right, and greater use might well be made of it. In our large cities, there are many persons guilty of disorderly conduct, or charged with the violation of some police regulation, or some trivial or purely technical offence, who would face trial, without being held in custody, but are unable to procure bondsmen. In both civic and rural communities, there are also many whose family and business relations are such, that there is no reason to apprehend that they will seek to avoid trial by running away. The fact that such persons can not furnish bail is no sufficient reason for their imprisonment. In all such cases, the committing magistrate must of course use wise discrimination in the exercise of his right to waive the usual bail-bond.
“It is further desirable that the criminal code should provide for the probation of the accused, in advance of trial.
“By the adoption of these and other similar methods, fewer men and women would be exposed to the peril of moral contagion in prison, which, under our present system, affects even those who may be, and in fact often are, innocent. Moreover, it is an error to imagine that all who are guilty of the charges for which, under the statutes, if unable to pay a reasonable fine, they must endure a term of incarceration, are depraved. The boy who throws a ball through a plate glass window and is caught, is no worse than the boy who does the same thing and makes his escape without being arrested; nor the boy who can pay a fine, than the boy who can not.”