CLASSIFICATION OF PRISONERS.

Evening Star, Issue 3810, 11 May 1875, Page 3

CLASSIFICATION OF PRISONERS.

It is argued that, however the association of prisoners with free persons might be ad vantageous to the former, that of prisoners with prisoners cannot but prove hurtful to them. But this is a gratuitous, and, in our opinion wholly erroneous assumption; Everyone knows that it is easier to influence men in a body than individually, and that, when once in motion, they will go further, since they mutually help one another by the common enthusiasm created by the union. Moreover, strange as the proposition sounds, there*,is a natural tendency in numbers to right feeling. Witness the clap-trap Of athcatre, which are generally high, moral sentiment. Witness the further fact, that the better feelings of a mob are rarely appealed to in vain. . On the field of battle the most heroic devotion even to the sacrifice of life—is often called out at a word. In none of these instances, probably, could the same generous response be obtained from a single individual, which he readers, not only spontaneously, but enthusiastically, as one of a body. Captain Maconochie says that on Norfolk Island he could have done nothing with the prisoners separately-that the best of them would have remained only dogged under his exhortations, ' and that, in Birmingham, he would neither have gamed over the boys as he did, riorwould thty have been able to influence each o*her outside as they did, if they had been shut up in separate cells. The experiences of Montbsinos at Valencia, of ObwbmATek at Munich, of Crofton in Ireland, of Sollohub at Moscow, and of Guillaume at Neufch&tel were, as we have seen, all of the same nature. The principle is, that life within prison must be made as close a copy of life outside as may be, without sacrificing auy of the just ends of public punishment. All systems of prison discipline have been ID the main, but modification of force Authority bas been their chief, too often their exclusive reliance. The result, so far as reforming criminals is concerned, has b'.;en .a failure. l Let organised' persuasion now have a fair trial : not coaxing, not pampering, not indulgence— a system as pernicious as it is false and feeble -but persuasion, with such forces behind it, resulting from a judicious application of motives, as while leaving the will freewill yet by a sort of moral necessity determine it to a right choice. A-professional thief, not long since m Dunedin, said, “ Is then the njain. object of punishm-nt the reform of the offender, But what right has society to assume to itself the moral education of certain peisons and’ sequester them for that purpose, depriving them of their liberty ? Is it because they have shown themselves by their conduct to be in great need of improvement ? But others need it also in a less degree and those whose outward actions have not been so offensive to society may, in their inward character, need reform much more. If the object of penal legislation is to reform the criminal, why select one class of offences

only? “Whynjo* the ogmtq&i selfish, untruthful, prend, vafin, licentious. They need reform, surety, as ranch as thieves and robbers?” It is evident, therefore t< that the moral improvement of tire criminal can only be a secondary object ef punishment. The late Lord i erbv stated that, “ When criminals are in prison they cannot commit crime, and the community is thus protected by any kind of ineareeration;” but small tents of fihprlSonment also interfere with the reformation ef the prisoner. He is thinking mere of getting out than of reform ; he has no time in prison to break up bad habits or form good ones; he has no time to learn a trade, or to get any education, and so he usually goes eut as bad as he same in, and is prepared to begin immediately a new career of crime. The protection of the community, therefore, seems to require that instead of short boms there should be substituted a sentence of indefinite confinement, the tesminatioo ef which should depend en the behaviour ef the prisoner. An ignorant prisoner might be sentenced until he should have mastered a trade and'acquired the rudiments of education. Fixed terms of imprisonment of different duration have probably come from the notion that the chief end of a penalty is to punish guilt. Such a crime, it is thought, deserves ten years’ imprisonment; such another merits only five ; another only six months’, Ac., &c. But if the purpose of imprisoning criminals is to protect society, “they ought not to be set free until they have formed such new habits as will make it probab-'e that they will lead honest and industrious habits. ” itis no doubt true that. a public trial and conviction, if convicted properly, tends to educate- the general conscience ; but this result depends on the public belief that the innoeent man will be generally acquitted and the gui'ty condemned. Justice becomes a farce wHefa great criminals—known of all men to be guilty—can readily escape punishment by the help of able lawyers, skilful bribery, absurd forms of law, or iniquitous judges. Hence, criminal legislation should aim at embodying the results of the largest experience and wisest study, and hence, also, the pardoning power of the Executive should be limited. And in doing this there is no danger that the prison will become too attractive ; for this plan does not diminish restraint, but rather increases it, and to this, plan naturally belongs more certainty of conviction, less hope of pardon, and no prospect of leaving the prison except by genuine and demonstrated repentance and reformation.— Communica'ed.