Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 12.djvu/498

 PRISONS

432

PRISONS

poral or perpetual. The culprit had to do penance and amend his ways. He was isolated and often chained. Generally the discipline was severe; not unfrequently corporal punishment was added to in- carceration and the prisoner put on bread and water. The Church had the right to punish clerics for penal offences and had its own episcopal prisons, but from the middle of the sixteenth century, as a result of the changed relations of Church and State, the primlcgium fori disappeared and the State resumed its right of punishing clerics in non-religious matters. In the episcopal prisons clerics were treated more gently than were the monks in convent prisons, neverthe- less in certain cases the discipline was very rigorous. The Church had jurisdiction also over the laity in offences of a religious character. Finally, it created a new procedure, differing from the ordinarj', \-iz. the inquisitorial procedure in cases of heresy. Jm- prisonment was the severest punishment the in- quisitors could inflict directly. According to the inquisitional theory, it was not really a punishment, but a means for the culprit to obtain pardon for his crimes, and to amend and be converted, while close supervision prevented him from infecting the rest of the flock. The prisoners were subjected to two regimes: the severe and the milder; but, in either case, the captive was given only bread and water; he was confined to a cell, and forbidden all communica- tion, though the latter provision was not strictly enforced. Those under the milder discipline could, if they behaved well, take a little exercise in the corridors, a privilege granted also to the aged and infirm. Those condemned to the severe regime were cast fettered into a narrow dark cell; sometimes they were chained to the walls. The prisons were con- structed without any regard to the health or con- venience of the inmates, and the condition of the latter was wretched. The Inquisition sometimes commuted or remitted the punishment. The re- mission was ad tempus, for a longer or shorter period, according to the case.

in. Modern Prison Reforms. — In spite of these efforts to better the prison system in earlier days there was much room for improvement in the build- ings, diet, and discipline. Usually the main object of the authorities was to punish rather than to re- form the culprit. Not unfrequently the greatest criminals and persons convicted of trifling offences were imprisoned together. Fortunately, after the construction of St. JVIichael's prison by Clement XI, the development of cellular imprisonment went on uninterruptedly. From Central Italy the movement spread towards Northern Italy, to Turin (erection of the House of Good Counsel, 175"), Venice (1760), Milan, where Empress Maria Theresa established in 1759 a house of correction containing 140 cells, 25 of which were for women and 20 for children. From Milan the system, as might be expected, was introduced almost immediately into the Austrian Low Countries where Maria Theresa's efforts were earnestly seconded by Viscount Jean Vilain XIV, Burgomaster of Ghent (Vicomte Vilain XIV, "M^- moires sur les moyens de corriger les malfaiteurs", Brussels, 1S41). At his suggestion the celebrated prison of Ghent, finished in 1775, was erected (Holt- zendorf, "Handbuch", I, pi. 3, gives the plan of this prison). The system adopted there was isolation by night and work in common by day. Moreover a division of the culprits according to juridical and moral classification was seriously undertaken.

A general change in prison discipline was effected through the efforts of John Howard the philan- thropist, b. in 1726 at Hackney, London (Riviere, "Howard, sa vie, son ocuvre" in "Revue p^niten- tiaire", 1891, pp. 662 sqq.; Howard-Wines, "Punish- ment and Reformation, 122 sqq.; Krohne, "Lehr- buch"; Cuche, "Traits de science et de legislation

pdnitentiares", 304). Having visited the prisons of England, Germany, France, Italy, Portugal, Turkey, and North America, he published in 1744 a remark- able work, "State of the prisons in England and Wales with preliminary observations and an account of some foreign prisons". Howard described the wretched conditions of the prisons: imprisonment in common without regard to age or sex, want of space, bad food, damp and vitiated air, want of light, filth, immorality, the use of spirituous liquors, gambling with cards and dice. After noting the e\-ils, he proposes the remedies. It is on a religious training of the prisoners that he relies most tor a reform; the second great means is work; he holds that society is bound by the ties of brotherhood and even by the hope of reclaiming the culprit, to provide him with proper food and subject him to a hygienic regime; he favoured the separation of prisoners, though he did not approve of the system of shutting them alone in cells both by day and night, except for certain classes of culprits; all others he would separate only during the night. Howard was the interpreter of the opinion of the civilized world. It is interesting to note the results of this change of opinion in the different countries, or, at least, to point out the original systems.

United States of America. — (1) The Pennsylvania system is the work of the Philadelphia Society for Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons, founded in 1776. The fundamental idea of this regime is rigorous and continued isolation to excite to re- pentance and lead the culprit to a better life. At first the system was carried to such an extreme that the cells were without light in order that the darkness might act more powerfully on the prisoner's mind and conscience. Some wTiters say that the culprits had no work to do, but that is uncertain. The Pennsyl- vania system, in its rigorous form as it was originally established, prevented, it is true, the mutual corrup- tion of the prisoners and the planning of crimes to be committed on their release, which are the negative effects of individual separation; but it was not suited to produce positive results, that is, an awakening of the moral sense in man left to his own meditations; the cell can have an influence for moral good onl}' when it enables the reflections of solitude to be guided and strengthened by outside influences (Cuche, op. cit., 312 sqq.).

(2) The system of Auburn or silence (Chestel, "Avantages du Sj^steme d' Auburn", 1900), intro- duced in the State of New York, consists in isolating the prisoners only at night, in making them work to- gether in strict silence during the day, and in separat- ing them according to age and morality. This is, in general, the same as the regime of the prisons of Amsterdam, St. Michael, and Ghent. The prin- cipal objection urged against it is the difficulty of enforcing silence, and of preventing the inmates from communicating with one another. Moreover, such unnatural life makes the culprits irascible.

(3) In the so-called system of classification, the prisoners are divided not only according to sex, age, degree of guilt, aptitude for work,- but also according to their moral character and the po.ssibility of amend- ment; in each division work is in common. Such a system depending entirely on the judgment of the governor of the gaol seems diflScult to carry out in practice.

(4) In the mitigated Pennsylvania system, the inmates are isolated in cells day and night ; they are separated also in church, in school, and on the grounds, but they work at a lucrative trade, read books, are visited by members of the prison staff, are allowed to receive their relations from time to time, and may write to them.

(5) The state reformatories are intended to pro- vide rigorous training for prisoners between the ages