Chapter II: Section 1: Be it enacted, etc., That the active or visiting committee (2)

While we have thus been dreaming, tardily and ineffectually putting into effect the aspirations of a long-distant past, a new penology has come into being, based not on humanitarian sentiment or on “the common sense of most,” but on the scientific study of the delinquent and his environment. New sciences of psychology, psychiatry and sociology have been forged to meet the conditions of the new day and these have furnished us with a new basis for penological experimentation. We have learned that the criminal is not merely a person who has in the exercise of an unfettered will chosen the evil rather than the good, but a person of complex personality shaped by heredity and environment to what he is, none the less a menace to society than the older conception made him, not the less requiring restraint and correction, but demanding and deserving individual treatment according to the nature which has been developed in him. We have learned from recent scientific study of the most rigorous and trustworthy sort that from 50 to 60 per cent. of the inmates of our correctional institutions are abnormal--feeble-minded, insane, psychopathic--to the point of irresponsibility, to all intents and purposes the same kind of people that fill our hospitals for the insane and institutions for the feeble-minded. We have also learned, from sociological case studies, that a very large proportion of those that the psychiatrist would class as normal are the victims of neglected childhood and of the depraving influences of the institutions in which they have spent a great part of their young lives.

It seems clear that this new knowledge makes for a new classification, based not, like that of the Elmira system, on behavior in confinement, nor, like that of the current penology, on the character of the crime committed, but on the exact study of the individual and that the treatment accorded him must be adapted to the results of such study.

Here, then, is the new opportunity for a further advance out of this slough of despond--an opportunity not inferior to that which this Commonwealth so superbly grasped in its heroic youth--to bring its penal administration into conformity with the newer conceptions of delinquency. Tinkering the old machine is not enough. It must be remodeled altogether. Adding to the powers of a board of inspectors here, curbing them there, setting up new boards and commissions to direct the doing of this, to restrain the doing of that--all these are but a part of the old game, which will after all continue to be played in very much the old perfunctory way. What is demanded is a genuine reconstruction of the penal system of the Commonwealth, one which shall, with as little disturbance to the existing management of the several institutions as possible, put at their service all the resources of the new knowledge of crime and its treatment. It is the purpose of this report to suggest the lines of this future development of our penal system.

III.

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PRESENT PENAL SYSTEM.

As the foregoing outline indicates, the several State institutions of a penal, correctional and reformatory character, with the two Glen Mills Schools (which, though largely under private management, are essentially public institutions) have been developed at different times, under the influence of changing conceptions of social responsibility for different types of offenders. As a result of this circumstance each is separately managed by a board of inspectors or managers, which exercises complete control over the policy of the institution to which its authority extends. This Board appoints the Warden or Superintendent, fixes his or her compensation, determines the industrial and educational policy of the institution and, under the authority of the Legislature, disburses the funds appropriated for its maintenance. The disciplinary policy of the institution is almost invariably entrusted to the Warden or Superintendent and, as is natural, if that official happens to be a person of strong individuality and initiative, his policy in practice, if not in theory, governs the entire administration. Nowhere is there a centralized authority exercising a general control or an effective influence. The only approach to such a general agency is the State Board of Public Charities, which may investigate and require the submission of an annual report, and the Prison Labor Commission, which exercises a general supervision over the industries of the two penitentiaries and the Huntingdon Reformatory, but which has no effective power to carry its plans into execution. There is, accordingly, no uniform policy, even in the case of institutions like the two Glen Mills schools, which have a similar type of inmates and an identical aim, nor in the case of all the institutions under consideration in matters where their problems and needs are the same. That there are advantages in this policy of separate control cannot be denied. It gives to an energetic and progressive superintendent or board of managers a degree of initiative in reform and experimentation which, under a highly centralized control of all the institutions, it would be difficult to secure. On the other hand it may have the effect of depriving the individual institution, because of its poverty or because of the reactionary character of its administration, of the benefits of an advance which may have been made elsewhere. There could not be a better illustration of the unevenness of development resulting from this lack of co-ordination in the Pennsylvania prison system than the fact that the Eastern Penitentiary was compelled to wait for the initiative of its present Warden for the partial adoption of the congregate system, which had for forty years existed in the Western Penitentiary, and which had everywhere demonstrated its superiority over the system of solitary confinement.

Upon the whole, however, what strikes the thoughtful observer is not the diversity of policy and management among these institutions, even where they have avowedly different aims, but their conformity to a common type, and that the prison type. With only two exceptions--Sleighton Farms and the Training School at Morganza--the persistent shadow of the Penitentiary rests upon them all. It is true that in the new Central Penitentiary on its broad acreage at Bellefonte and in the Eastern Penitentiary, so far as the physical and industrial conditions render possible, the shadow has been lifted, but it is safe to say of the penal system of the State as a whole, that it is still too much dominated by the ancient ideal of demonstrating to the inmates that “the way of the transgressor is hard.” Even in institutions of a purely reformatory character, while they leave little to be desired in the way of healthful conditions of living, orderly administration and educational opportunities, the reformation of the wrong-doer is still too much sought through a system of stern repression, of “iron discipline”--a system which, as all experience shows, defeats its end by crushing out the finer elements of character on which the redemption of the individual must depend. An almost invariable incident of this type of disciplinary control is the persistence of the policy of securing good conduct through punishment--often severe punishment for trivial offenses--rather than by the more enlightened and humane method of holding out incentives to good behavior, either by the grant of special privileges or by putting on the inmates themselves the responsibility for the good behavior of all.

Other instances of the persistence of the traditional attitude toward the offender are the almost complete lack throughout our penal system of a scientific, balanced ration, such as has in the experience of prison administrators in other States, as notably at Sing Sing Prison in 1916, and more recently in our army camps, demonstrated the value both for health and efficiency and from the point of view of economy of a scientific management of the problem of food supply for large masses of men; the general indifference to outdoor recreation and exercise, so essential to the health and morale of the inmate body; the meagre provision for any education worthy of the name; the all but complete lack of comprehensive and well rounded systems of vocational or industrial training, on which the efficiency of prison labor and the ability of the inmates to “make good” in the world of industry after their release so largely depends; the demoralizing idleness which is still after three decades of effort the most marked characteristic of our prison system; and, finally, the insufficient care for the physical and mental health of the inmates of our correctional institutions, which still for the most part mingle indiscriminately together the tuberculous and syphilitic with those who are sound in body and the insane, psychopathic and defective with those who are sound in mind.

Many of these conditions which continue to put the brand of the prison on the inmates of our correctional institutions are doubtless due to the survival of the Bastille type of prison architecture, which is exemplified in the Eastern and Western Penitentiaries and in such structures as Moyamensing Prison in Philadelphia, the Convict Prison at Holmesburg, the Philadelphia House of Correction and many others. It is scarcely too much to say that no human being is vile enough to deserve confinement in such a place or dangerous enough to need it. Even the most unbending of the old type of prison official will concede that 80 per cent. of the inmates neither need nor deserve to be confined behind triple bars of steel or in cells like catacombs or within walls like those of Egyptian tombs. Keepers and inmates alike lose half their humanity by confinement in these grim and forbidding structures. No reforming influence however humane and generous, can long survive in their atmosphere.

Public opinion is at last moving away from this antiquated type of prison architecture to the newer type represented in the honor prison at New Hampton Farms in New York and in our Commonwealth in the cottage colonies at Sleighton Farms, Glen Mills, Morganza, and Muncy. The change which comes over the men who are transferred from the Western Penitentiary to the new prison site in Centre County is a sufficient commentary on the older type of prison, and demonstrates beyond peradventure the duty of affording to all of our convict population a similar life of freedom and opportunity. This result, so desirable from every point of view, could in large measure be attained in a short time by equipping the Eastern Penitentiary with a suitable area of farm land in the Eastern Section of the State and by making immediate provision for the institution of State industrial farms for the convicts confined in the county prisons, as is recommended elsewhere in this report.

IV.

PRISON LABOR.

The conditions existing in the penal institutions of the Commonwealth with respect to the employment of the inmates in useful industry have been so fully set forth in the Emergency Report submitted by the Commission to the Governor in September last (a copy of which is annexed to this report) and in the comprehensive study of the problem by the Penal Commission of 1913-1915 (submitted to the General Assembly under date of February 15, 1915) that it is not deemed necessary to go into the matter at length in this place. It suffices to call attention to the fact that the conditions described in those reports have not in any material respect been improved. Of approximately 10,000 inmates in the penal and correctional institutions of the State, less than one-half are usefully employed, not more than one-fourth in productive labor. The economic waste of such a system extended over a century is scarcely less appalling than its inhumanity. By the law a large part of this interminable procession of offending and suffering humanity has been condemned to hard labor. In actual practice nearly all of it has been doomed to wasteful and demoralizing idleness.

The law of June 1, 1915, “providing a system of employment and compensation for the inmates of the Eastern Penitentiary, Western Penitentiary and the Pennsylvania Industrial Reformatory at Huntingdon” and creating a Prison Labor Commission to carry its provisions into effect, has proved almost wholly inoperative, owing primarily to the failure of the Legislature to provide for the compulsory purchase of prison-made goods by the Commonwealth or the political divisions thereof or by public institutions. As a consequence, out of a total population of 3200 in the three institutions to which the authority of the Commission extends, at the close of the year 1918 only 169 were employed under the direction of the Commission. These were distributed as follows:--

Eastern Penitentiary, population 1,371
Caning chairs 16
Cigarmaking 11
Shoemaking 42
Knitting hosiery 38
----- 107
Absolutely idle 839

Western Penitentiary, population 720
Broommaking 10
Brushmaking 2
Weaving 18
----- 30
Absolutely idle 393

Huntingdon Reformatory, population 579
Auto-tagmaking 32

Whether considered as a relief from the crushing burden of expense that our penal establishments entail, or as a remedy for the physical and moral degeneration resulting from enforced idleness, or as a means to equip the inmates for lives of industry and usefulness after their release, a system of prison labor which produces the results set forth in these figures stands self condemned.

To make the plan embodied in the law of 1915 effective, it should further provide:

(1) That municipalities as well as the Commonwealth and the political divisions thereof and all public institutions shall be required, as far as may be practicable, to supply their needs from the labor of the penal and correctional institutions;

(2) That the authority of the Commission or of any body in which its powers may be vested shall extend to the reformatory institutions at Darlington, Glen Mills, Morganza and Muncy and to all State, county and municipal institutions of a penal or correctional character;

(3) That the power of such Commission or body to regulate prison industry be extended to all forms of labor activity of the inmates of such institutions, including farming, roadmaking, land reclamation, forestry, etc.;

(4) That such Commission or body be empowered to determine the compensation of prisoners for industrial and other work performed by them and the method of applying such compensation to the use of such prisoners or their dependents;

(5) That the strict “State use” plan be modified by permitting the sale in the open market, at not less than the market price, of any surplus product resulting from the labor of the inmates over and above the product disposed of as provided in the act.

V.

THE COUNTY PRISONS.

In Pennsylvania, as in most, if not all, of the other States of the Union, the county jail is the despair of those who look for a better day in the treatment of the wrong-doer. The admiration which our experiments in the reformatory treatment of the young have excited in eminent foreign penologists has turned to loathing when their attention was directed to the county jails. Sir Evelyn Ruggles-Brise, the distinguished head of the English prison system, in an article published a few months after his visit to this country in 1910, described them in the following terms:

“In these gaols it is hardly too much to say that many of the
features linger which called forth the wrath and indignation
of the great Howard at the end of the eighteenth century.
Promiscuity, unsanitary conditions, absence of supervision,
idleness and corruption--these remain the features in many
places. Even the ‘fee’ system is still in vogue. The gaolers are
still paid by fees for the support of prisoners, and commitments
to gaol are common when some other disposition of the case would
have been imposed had not the commitment yielded a fee to the
sheriff, who is usually in charge of the gaol. In many gaols
there are not facilities for medical examination on reception,
for ventilation, for exercise, or for bathing.... The foreign
delegates were amazed at this startling inconsistency between the
management of the common gaols and that of the State prisons and
State reformatories. The evils to which I refer are well known
and deplored by that body of earnest and devoted men and women in
all sections of American society with whose lofty ideals on the
subject of prison reform and generous aspirations for the humane
treatment of the prisoner, the Washington Congress made us every
day familiar, but they seem helpless and almost hopeless....
I was appealed to by leading men in more than one State, as
British representative, to publicly condemn the system, and this
I did, at a risk of giving considerable offense. Until the abuses
of the gaol system are removed, it is impossible for America to
have assigned to her by general consent a place in the vanguard
of progress in the domain of ‘_la science penitentiaire_.’”

Your Commission desires to submit as its considered judgment that the foregoing statement does no injustice to many of the county prisons of this Commonwealth, and that the Legislature can do no greater service, nor one that will reflect more credit on the Commonwealth, than to sweep away the entire county jail system without delay.

Attention has been called elsewhere in this report to the deplorable conditions of idleness which prevail in the prisons of our Commonwealth. These conditions are at their worst in the county institutions. In the last six years the average daily number of prisoners in the county jails of the Commonwealth has been about 6500. Only about one-fourth of these have some form of employment other than domestic service. But when all of the returns are in with regard to the work accomplished, the number of days spent in complete idleness in the course of a year will average more than one million. If we regard the labor of the prisoners as worth fifty cents a day, the amount of waste thus exceeds $500,000 annually.

In order to obviate this condition of affairs, the General Assembly in 1917 passed an Act (No. 337, P. L. 1917), vesting in the officers in charge of county prisons the privilege of allowing the prisoners to work on county and poorhouse farms. Although only twenty-seven counties have taken advantage of this Act, its results have been very beneficial. The workers have improved in health, strength and morale, and the produce of their labor has been of material help in the up-keep of the institutions. Unfortunately, the operation of this Act terminates with the close of the war.

A more comprehensive Act was proposed by the Penal Commission of 1913-1915, which recommended the establishment of six industrial farms to be controlled by the State, to which all persons convicted of crime or misdemeanor, and now committed to county institutions, should hereafter be sent. This admirable measure was, however, amended in such a way as to leave the initiative in the creation of such farms and the control thereof to the County Commissioners of the nine groups of counties into which the State was divided for the purpose (No. 399, P. L. 1917). This legislation has fallen flat, not one of the industrial districts having carried the scheme into effect.

Your Commission submits that there is no remedy for the condition of affairs above described other than the complete assumption by the State of the custody and care of the offenders, whether felons or misdemeanants, who are now committed to the county institutions.

Farming for prisoners, as our investigations in other States have clearly shown, has passed beyond the experimental stage. The State of Massachusetts, some years ago, established a penal farm for misdemeanants at Bridgewater. A large tract of ground was purchased, consisting largely of swamp and abandoned land, which, by the use of fertilizers and by drainage, has been brought to a high degree of cultivation. This enterprise has been so signally successful that it is now proposed to move the State Prison at Charlestown to this same farm at Bridgewater.

Perhaps the most successful experiment of the kind has been made in Indiana, where the State has taken over the custody of misdemeanants on the plan which was recommended by the Pennsylvania Penal Commission of 1913-1915, a recommendation which is renewed in this report. The Superintendent of the Indiana State Farm makes the following report:--

“The farm had an average daily population, in 1918, of four
hundred and sixty-two prisoners. All institution buildings and
outbuildings, the sewer system, power plant, heating and water
systems, land reclaiming, farming and gardening, has been done
with the labor of misdemeanants at a surprisingly low cost for
guards. The Indiana State Farm is allowed fifty-five cents per
man per day for its entire maintenance, while the same man in
jail, at the present time, will cost more than one dollar per
day for the gross maintenance. The fifty-five cents per man per
day pays the entire pay roll, subsistence, fuel, light, heat,
medical services, clothing, transportation, field and garden
seeds, fertilizers, common labor, tools and all other items of
maintenance....

“The effect that the Indiana State Farm has had on the jail
system of the State is indicated by the following figures: In
the year 1914 there were 18,130 commitments to county jails, in
1915, 14,644, and in 1916, 9,896. The doors of the State Farm
were opened April 12, 1915, and the full effect of the State Farm
was not noticeable until the close of the year 1916. The moral
effect of the institution on the misdemeanant class was one very
important factor in reducing the jail commitments.”

During the year ending September 30, 1918, this penal farm was two-thirds self-supporting, and it is confidently expected that the institution will soon be entirely self-supporting.

New York City has established a reformatory farm of 630 acres at New Hampton, N. Y., to which boys and men from sixteen to thirty years of age are committed. They have no bars, no wall, no restraining thing, except supervision. They have no cell for punishment. From the farm they secure most of their provisions. In handling 2000 prisoners, they have lost only five. The health of the inmates is greatly improved. It is estimated that 45 per cent. of the prisoners there were addicted to the drug habit. Most of them were sent away restored. What they needed was to be built up by fresh air, good food and exercise, and to be employed in wholesome work. In fact, they have been taught the dignity of labor--a thing to which most of them had hitherto been strangers.

But we need not go beyond the limits of our own State to prove the benefit and success of farming for misdemeanants. The administration of the Allegheny County Workhouse illustrates the economy of providing employment for prisoners on an industrial farm. Here the average daily number of inmates in 1918 was 722. The daily average cost of each inmate was 81 cents, but after deducting the earnings of the inmates, the net cost was only 32 cents. This means that the inmates earned 49 cents a day toward their own maintenance. Their bookkeeping indicates merely the cost of raising the crops. If the institution had charged itself with the produce used by it at the prevailing market price, the net cost would have been much less. The farm has 670 acres, of which 560 acres are farmed and used as pasture. The inmates are continually coming and going. Many of them are committed for ten days or less, and a large part are sentenced for 30 days, while comparatively few of them remain longer than one year. This shows that a great deal of efficient work can be secured, even from those who serve for short terms.

A similarly striking result has been attained in Delaware County under the law of 1911, empowering the judges of the Courts of Common Pleas to release on parole convicts confined in county jails or workhouses under the supervision of designated probation officers. Acting under this law, the President Judge of that county has during the year 1918 paroled a number of inmates of the county jail to work on farm lands rented for the purpose with the remarkable result that only two of the men so paroled made their escape (both being afterwards retaken) and that nearly $14,000 worth of crops were sold for cash in addition to the vegetables used and stored in the prison. The net profit is estimated at $7,000.

Logically, we cannot avoid the conclusion that the State ought to assume the care of all offenders. The laws are made by the State, and the indictments charge the accused with offences against the “peace and dignity of the Commonwealth,” not against the peace and dignity of the county, municipality or borough. The conclusion is inevitable that the Commonwealth should assume the responsibility for the protection of the community from both felons and misdemeanants. And since such an arrangement as has been proposed will result in reduced taxation, uniformity of management and in greater facilities for the education and reformation of the delinquent, we feel that the establishment of State industrial farms to receive the delinquents now committed to the county prisons should receive your favorable consideration.

The bill submitted to carry this recommendation into effect omits the counties of Philadelphia and Allegheny from its operation. Allegheny County already has a prison farm which in many ways may be considered a model of its kind. Philadelphia has a farm in connection with the House of Correction which furnishes employment to many prisoners and supplies much produce for the institution. We recommend that at some early date the City of Philadelphia may, by the purchase of more land, extend the advantages of a penal farm to its convict prison and in some way combine under one management the entire penal system of the municipality.

The fee system, whereby the sheriff or warden receives a stipulated sum each day for the board of prisoners, is so liable to abuse that we submit a proposition to abolish the practice in all our prisons. Whenever the profits from boarding the prisoners is a part of the remuneration of the officer in charge, the tendency is doubtless to exploit the prisoners, or to reduce to a minimum the supply of food, in order to derive the greater profit.

In 1915 a comprehensive study of the cost of boarding the prisoners in the largest 25 counties of the Commonwealth indicated that the average daily cost of food per prisoner in the 15 prisons where the food was purchased on the contract system was 12 cents, and in the 10 counties where the fee system was in vogue 33.7 cents, the difference in favor of the contract system being 21.7 cents per day for each prisoner.

We estimate that in these 10 counties alone the saving to the taxpayers by the adoption of the contract system will be at least $50,000 annually. The economy of the proposition is evident, making due allowance for providing in some counties additional compensation for the official in charge of the prison. In all cases where a change has been made from the fee system to the contract system, the food has improved in character, thus tending to the betterment of the health and morale of the inmates.

Moved by these considerations, the General Assembly in 1909 provided that in all counties having a population of 150,000 or more, the food for the prisoners must be purchased by contract. We are now proposing to extend this principle to all the counties of the Commonwealth, with the understanding that no such change is to take place during the incumbency of the officials who are at the present time in charge of the prisons.

VI.

PROBATION AND PAROLE.

(_a_) Under the law of May 10, 1909, the several courts of criminal jurisdiction are invested with the power of suspending sentence on certain classes of convicted offenders and of placing such offenders on probation instead of committing them for definite or indeterminate periods of imprisonment. Probation officers, charged with the duty of supervising the behavior of such probationers, are appointed by the judges to serve in their respective counties. In this Commonwealth, as in many others, experience has demonstrated that there is little uniformity in the practice of the courts in suspending sentence or of the probation officers in exercising their powers.

Conceived as a mere incident of the sentencing power, to be exercised only in exceptional cases, the suspended sentence and probation are beginning to disclose themselves as a momentous, not to say revolutionary step in the progress of penology, not less important in its ultimate consequences than the substitution a century ago of imprisonment for the death penalty and other forms of physical punishment. Like the older forms of punishment which it superseded, imprisonment too has proved a failure, so far at least, as the newer aim of punishment, the reformation of the wrong-doer is concerned. And we are coming to see that the protection which society enjoys through the imprisonment for a few months or years of a small proportion of the criminal class is dearly purchased by a system which returns the offender to society less fitted than before to cope with the conditions of a life of freedom. More and more, as we develop a probation service worthy of the name, will the courts be reluctant to commit men, women and children to the demoralizing associations and discipline of institutional life and will give them their chance to redeem themselves under competent guidance and supervision among the associations and activities of everyday life.

Even under existing conditions it is safe to say that far too many adult and youthful offenders convicted of criminal offences are committed to prison and far too many delinquent children to reformatories and other correctional institutions. Your Commission believes that the suspended sentence should be more liberally employed by the courts of the Commonwealth under strict conditions requiring a life of useful industry under careful supervision; that children under 12 years of age should never be committed to penal or correctional institutions but rather, where institutional care is deemed necessary, to parental schools such as have been established in other States as a part of the regular educational system; and that children of larger growth, say from 12 to 16, should, wherever possible, be placed on probation or put under private guardianship.

Those considerations have led the Commission to the conclusion that the whole subject of the suspended sentence and probation in this Commonwealth should be thoroughly studied in order that the principles that should govern it may be carefully defined and its procedure worked out, supervised and put on a uniform basis. New York and other States have for this purpose created a permanent probation board or commission and the success which has attended their labors suggests the institution of a similar body in this Commonwealth.

(_b_) The indeterminate sentence, which made its appearance in this Commonwealth in the law of May 10, 1909, has passed through several phases to a state in which its purpose is almost completely defeated. In its original form it provided that the maximum term to be imposed upon a convict who should be sentenced to imprisonment in either the Eastern or the Western Penitentiaries should not exceed the maximum time prescribed by law and that the minimum term when not fixed by law, should not exceed one-fourth of the maximum time. This law was amended by an Act approved June 19, 1911, striking out the restriction as to the minimum sentence, thus leaving to the courts complete discretion to fix the minimum to be served at any period short of the maximum. Many of the courts have in frequent instances virtually nullified the indeterminate sentence principle by imposing minimum sentences so excessive as to bring the judicial office into disrepute. Sentences of from 18 years to 20 and from 19 years to 20 have been common, and there have been cases so grotesque as sentences of 19 years 11 months, or of 19 years, 11 months and 29 days to 20 years, of 23 years and 3 months to 25 years and of 27 to 28 years. These are only the more extreme illustrations of a practice which has been common enough to justify a demand for a law which will result in greater uniformity in the matter of imposing sentences for crime.

At its best the maximum-minimum form of the indeterminate sentence is an unsatisfactory compromise between the ideal aim of penologists and the traditional attitude of the courts, which cling tenaciously to their ancient prerogative of “making the punishment fit the crime.” That the power of determining the period of imprisonment requisite to meet the demands of justice and the interests of society may safely be confided to other than judicial hands has been conceded in the case of all offenders entitled to commitment to reformatories, who are sentenced to an indeterminate term limited only by the maximum fixed by law, or, in the case of minors, to the attainment of their majority, and who may be released on parole in the discretion of the boards of managers of the institutions to which they are committed. It is only in the case of hardened offenders or of those guilty of certain major offenses that a minimum sentence is imposed.

For more than a generation prison reformers have urged the extension of the pure indeterminate sentence to this class of offenders also. Their logic is sound; it is the facts that are against them. The argument runs like this: The offender should be kept in confinement only until he is fitted by his prison experience to lead an honest and useful life; when this end is attained he should be released. The answer is that the prison doesn’t in fact reform the wrong-doer; that good behavior under the conditions of prison life is no assurance of the intention or capacity of the prisoner to lead an honest and useful life after his release, and that the inspectors or other paroling authority have no other guide to go by in determining the inmates’ fitness for a life of freedom than his prison record. If the reformer makes the obvious retort--“then reform your prison so that it shall reform its inmates, and reform your paroling authority so that it shall make its determination on all the facts of the inmate’s personal history including a study of his mental conditions, his heredity and the social influences that have shaped his character,” he is admitting that we are not yet ready for the complete acceptance of the indeterminate sentence in all classes of cases.

But there is a middle ground between the position of the extreme reformer and that which has been assumed by the courts of this Commonwealth. If there is to be anything short of a fixed sentence, declared by law, it should be a reasonable minimum which should also be declared by law. The policy of the indeterminate sentence is that the delinquent shall be supervised and guided and his capacity to lead an honest and useful life tested by actual experience under normal conditions of living for a period of years long enough to try out his capacity to readjust himself to a life of freedom in society. For this reason an adequate interval between the expiration of his minimum sentence, when he becomes eligible to parole, and the expiration of his maximum sentence, when he becomes free from judicial control, should be guaranteed by law.

There is great diversity of opinion as to the best form of paroling authority. Generally, as in this Commonwealth, this power is lodged in the inspectors or managers of the several institutions or, in the case of commitments to county prisons, in the courts of criminal jurisdiction. In some States, as in New York, a distinct Board of Parole is constituted which visits the convict prisons at intervals and hears and determines all applications for parole that may be awaiting determination. Neither system has worked with complete satisfaction. Under both the grant of parole is largely a perfunctory matter, the inmates who have served their minimum sentences being generally admitted to parole at once, except in those cases, comparatively rare in number, where the applicant has been penalized for misconduct while in confinement. It would seem, therefore, that the first step toward a reform of the paroling system is not to set up a new paroling authority but to devise some more effective machinery to put before the existing authorities all the essential facts as to the applicant’s mental, moral and physical capacity to conduct himself as a self-respecting, useful member of the community. A second, but not less necessary step, is such a change in the spirit and method of prison discipline as will develop in the inmates by actual practice the qualities of self-respect and self-reliance, the sense of honor and of responsibility and the habit of co-operative action so essential to fit them for a life of freedom and responsibility, and at the same time to equip them with the habits of industry and the vocational skill which will enable them to make good in the life that awaits them beyond the prison-wall.

VII.

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS.

In the foregoing analysis of the penal system of this Commonwealth, the Commission has endeavored not only to present a picture of the existing conditions in the light of modern conceptions of penology but to point out, also, the lines of a sound and progressive development of the system. Most of the suggestions thus made have already been embodied in the penal systems of other states and of enlightened communities beyond the seas. Especially is this the case in such matters as the general employment of the prison population in useful and productive labor and in the substitution of farm and cottage colonies for the old type of prison. In a few of the larger cities and in some institutions promising beginnings have been made in the mental examination of delinquents with a view to the provision of specialized treatment for those found to be mentally afflicted or seriously defective. But in no State or country, as yet, have all these improvements been welded into a comprehensive system which makes them available for the entire delinquent population. The inertia or indifference which leaves the extension of these benefits to chance or to the slow contagion of example is unworthy of a great and progressive Commonwealth which has in the past more than once demonstrated its capacity for leadership in penal reform.

It is evident that the general adoption in this State of these modern improvements in the treatment of the criminal problem can be effected only through the institution of a central agency adapted to secure a co-ordination of effort and a uniformity of development which under the present system of separate control has been demonstrated to be impossible. It seems equally evident, however, that the system of separate management of the several institutions with their diverse aims and problems possesses advantages which we would not willingly sacrifice to an ideal unity. For this reason the Commission has not deemed it wise to recommend the example of other States which have committed the management of all their correctional establishments to a central board of control. Moreover, with such a body as the Board of Public Charities already vested with a certain authority over the penal institutions of the State, it has not been deemed desirable to recommend the creation of a new and independent body to exercise a new jurisdiction over such institutions. It seems better to utilize the authority which already exists, to enlarge its range of functions to meet the needs of the proposed development and to commit the exercise of these functions to a standing committee analogous to the existing Committee on Lunacy. Through such a committee of the Board of Public Charities your Commission believes that the desired co-ordination and future development of the penal system of the Commonwealth can best be secured.

VIII.

RECOMMENDATIONS.

Upon the foregoing facts and conclusions the Commission submits the following recommendations, which are herewith submitted for such action as the General Assembly may deem proper:--

_First._--The Commission recommends that the General Assembly provide for the enlargement of the Board of Public Charities by the addition of two members thereto, at least one of whom shall be a woman, and by the institution of a standing committee of five members of such Board, at least one of whom shall be a woman, such committee, which shall be chosen annually by a majority vote of the Board, to be known as the “Committee on Delinquency” and to be vested with the following powers:--

(_a_) To inspect and investigate the condition and management of all penal, correctional and reformatory institutions within the Commonwealth and inquire into all complaints against the same and report thereon, with recommendations of appropriate action, to the Board of Public Charities, the Governor, the General Assembly, or the Courts, as the circumstances may require;

(_b_) To institute, maintain and supervise a medical service adapted to the examination of the inmates of such institutions and the proper professional treatment of all such as are mentally or physically afflicted or deficient;

(_c_) To make recommendations to the governing authorities of all such institutions for the improvement of the sanitary and hygienic conditions, the medical and hospital equipment, and the medical service thereof;

(_d_) To transfer inmates of institutions within its jurisdiction to other institutions owned, managed or controlled by the Commonwealth or any political subdivision thereof, or, if suitable arrangements can be made, to other institutions, where such inmates may receive treatment more suitable to their mental and physical condition;

(_e_) To institute, maintain and supervise in institutions within its jurisdiction a system of correctional and reformatory education;

(_f_) To institute, maintain and supervise a system for the employment of the inmates of institutions within its jurisdiction;

(_g_) To prepare and submit to the Board of Public Charities not later than the first day of December of each even-numbered year, a biennial budget for the Committee and such of the institutions within its jurisdiction as are wholly or partly supported by the Commonwealth, and for that purpose to require of such institutions such reports from time to time as the Committee shall deem necessary; and

(_h_) To make rules and regulations establishing a uniform system of accounting and bookkeeping in all institutions within its jurisdiction.

It is also recommended that the Committee on Delinquency be authorized and directed to choose a Secretary, not a member of the Board of Public Charities, at a salary of $7500 per annum, who shall be the executive officer of the Committee and an expert in the care and treatment of delinquents, and who shall be known as the “Commissioner of Delinquency.”

_Second._--The Commission further recommends that the General Assembly provide by appropriate legislation for the employment of all the able-bodied convicts of the Commonwealth in useful and, so far as possible, in productive labor, and especially, that it vest in the Committee on Delinquency the powers of the Prison Labor Commission and the functions of the Business Agent of such Commission and enlarge such powers and functions as suggested on page 15 of this report.

_Third._--The Commission further recommends the enactment of a law establishing four State Industrial Farms, to receive, care for and provide for the useful employment of the inmates of county prisons and jails and of persons hereafter convicted of any offense punishable by imprisonment in any county jail or prison who have been or shall hereafter be sentenced for a term of thirty days or more.

_Fourth._--The Commission further recommends that the Act of Assembly approved July 17, 1917 (No. 337), providing for the employment, during the continuance of the war, of inmates of county jails at agricultural labor on any county or almshouse farm, be amended so as to continue its operation indefinitely after the conclusion of peace.

_Fifth._--The Commission further recommends that the General Assembly provide for the purchase of a tract of land, of not less than 600 nor more than 1200 acres, to be used for the benefit of the Eastern Penitentiary as a prison farm.

_Sixth._--The Commission further recommends that a law be enacted prohibiting fees or allowances and contracts for furnishing meals to the inmates of county jails or other penal institutions of the Commonwealth.

_Seventh._--The Commission further recommends that the Act approved June 19, 1911, authorizing the courts in the case of a person sentenced to a penitentiary to fix as the minimum term of imprisonment any period less than the maximum prescribed by law for the offense of which such person was convicted, be amended by a provision that the minimum limit of the sentence imposed shall never exceed one-third of the maximum prescribed by the Court.

* * * * *

In the foregoing recommendations the Commission has confined itself to matters requiring legislative action and to such only as seem to it to be essential to a consistent, integrated policy of penal administration. All other matters with respect to which the Commission has given expression to its views are either subsidiary to those on which immediate legislative action is recommended or are such as may be properly referred to the wisdom of the proposed Committee on Delinquency for consideration and action. The greatest abuse of the prevailing prison system--the lack of imagination and of understanding which keeps alive in most of our penal establishments the methods of a severe and repressive discipline--cannot be abolished by legislative decree. The greatest reform of which the system is capable--the awakening in the inmates of the new life which comes from active, responsible participation in the life of the prison community--is equally beyond the reach of legislative action. These will be the fruits of a keener intelligence and of a deeper understanding than have yet, except in a few rare instances, been brought to bear on the problem. But your Commission believes that the plan of penal administration which it has recommended, and which provides for the most thorough-going study and the most intelligent treatment of the individual delinquent which has yet been attempted, will gradually prepare the way for these and other reforms in the penal system of the Commonwealth.

Respectfully submitted,

January 1, 1919.

FLETCHER W. STITES, _Chairman_,
ALFRED E. JONES,
MARTHA P. FALCONER,
LOUIS N. ROBINSON,
ALBERT H. VOTAW,
_Commissioners_.

GEORGE W. KIRCHWEY,
_Counsel to the Commission_.

COMMITTEE ON DELINQUENCY ACT.[1]

SECTION 1. _Be it enacted, etc._, That the Board of Public Charities shall appoint a standing committee of five of its members to be known as the Committee on Delinquency. Such Committee shall be chosen within thirty days after the approval of this Act, and annually thereafter, by a majority vote of all of the members of the Board, and at least one member of such Committee shall be a woman. Vacancies in the membership of the Committee shall be filled in like manner. Within thirty days after their selection, the Committee shall each year elect one of its members as chairman.

The members of the Committee shall serve without compensation but shall receive all of their travelling and other necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their official duties.

SECTION 2. The Committee selected under the provisions of this Act shall appoint a secretary, who shall not be a member of the Committee or of the Board of Public Charities. The secretary shall be the executive officer of the Committee and shall be known as the Commissioner of Delinquency. He shall be a person having expert knowledge respecting delinquency, and the care and treatment of delinquents and shall devote his entire time to the duties of his office. He shall be appointed for a term of five years and shall receive a salary of seven thousand, five hundred dollars per annum. The Committee shall have the power to remove the Commissioner at any time for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or misconduct in office, and shall, whenever a vacancy occurs either by death, resignation, or removal from office, appoint a Commissioner to fill the unexpired term.

SECTION 3. Subject to the approval of the Committee on Delinquency, the Commissioner of Delinquency shall appoint a medical director, an educational director, a director of industries, and such other directors, experts, agents, and employees for such terms and at such compensation as shall be fixed by the Committee on Delinquency. The Commissioner with the approval of the Committee shall have the power at any time to remove any director, or any expert, agent, or employee, so appointed.

SECTION 4. The Board of Commissioners of Public Grounds and Buildings shall provide the Committee on Delinquency with suitable rooms in the State Capitol, and elsewhere if necessary,....

SECTION 5. The Committee on Delinquency shall have jurisdiction for the purposes of this act over all institutions within this Commonwealth of a penal, correctional, or reformatory character now existing, or which may hereafter be established including industrial farms, workhouses, and reformatories, and reformatory institutions for minors or women, whether managed by the Commonwealth, or any political sub-division thereof or otherwise; _Provided_, That this act shall not be interpreted to deprive any warden, superintendent, or other officer, or board of inspectors, managers, or trustees, of any such institution of the right to manage its affairs, but every such institution shall make such reports to the Committee on Delinquency as the Committee shall be authorized by this Act to require and shall obey the rules and regulations established, and follow the recommendations made, by the Committee as authorized by this Act.