The author of the pamphlet entitled " State Prisons and the Penitentiary system vindicated," and the reviewer of it in the North American review for Oct. 1821, are opposed to entire solitary confinement. The reviewer says it " has been recommended by some without even having considered its effects. In the first place, if this should be adopted, the views of the economists must be abandoned, for the criminals can perform no labour." Now, so far from solitary confinement having been recommended with out due reflection, the fact is, that it was seriously brought before the judiciary committee of the Pennsylvania legis lature, during the session of 1820, aft er mature consideration for several months, on the total inefficiency of the system hitherto adopted in Pennsylvania ; on the good effects of short periods of seclusion experienced in Philadelphia, in sub duing outrageous tempers ; and on the equally well known injury experienced by the convicts, from their constantly increasing contamination, the unavailing influence of la bour upon their moral faculties, when performed in so ciety during the day, and their herding together at night. The rationale or modus operandi of this grand assuager of the turbulent passions was illustrated, and the Peniten tiary committee, in their report preparatory to the introduc tion of the late bill pro% iding for the erection of a new prison, with two hundred and fifty solitary cells, in Phi ladelphia, went still further into the subject, and sheav ed the happy effects that were likely to result from the adoption of the measure. They speak of " labour as an in dulgence and a relaxation," and as tending to defeat the ob ject of confinement ; and consider idle solitude as highly distressing. Of the truth of these positions, the experience of the Philadelphia inspectors is ample,* and other autho rities may be quoted to support them. Mr. Buxton says, that in the i‘laison de Force at Ghent, privation of work is a penalty sufficient to keep 99 out of 100 orderly and atten tive to the rules.t Mr. Cunningham the keeper of the Gloucester jail, says that criminals " dread solitude ; that it is the most beneficial means of working reform ; far better than corporal punishment, which when severe, hardens them more than any thing else." He adds, "Re fleet ion with low diet, are the causes of the good effect of solitary confinement." Mr Stokes, governor of the house of correction at Horsley, says, that " solitary confinement is a much greater punishment without work than with it. To the question, Do you think a convict would go out better, if he had been employed during the month of con finement you speak of ?' the reply is, no, nor half. The prisoner who is employed, passes his time smooth and comlbrtable, and he has a portion of his earnings; but if he has no labour, and kept under the discipline of the prison, it is a tight piece of punishment to go through. My opinion is, that if they are kept according to the rules of the prison, and have no labour, that would do more than six, [with labour ] I am certain, that a man who is kept there without labour once, will not be very ready to come there again.'1 A convict lately in the Philadelphia prison, was asked, " Did you stay in Rhode Island, alter your release from the solitary cells, there ?" " Oh, no, I gave them wide sea-room." He renewed his depredations, but it was in Pennsylvania, where the cells are reserved for punishing atrocious and turbulent convicts. For such characters, darkness and bread and water for diet, ought to be joined to solitude. The probable increased efficacy of total abstraction of light, most be obvious to all, and as to its absolute effect, there can be no doubt, having been repeatedly proven. The governor of the jail at Devises, says, that " he had only one occasion to use the dark cell, in the case of the same prisoner, twice." He considered punishment in a dark cell for one day, had a greater effect upon a prisoner, than to keep him on bread and water for a month."§ In pi isons, where work is deemed preferable to solitary idleness, the convicts ought to be compelled to earn at least five dollars per year, above the amount of their ex penses,11 to prevent the possibility of an excuse which has often been made, for robbing, to support life, until they can obtain the means of employment after their libera tion, or to enable them to return home. Nor should they be permitted to leave the prison without this capital in hand. Convicts, knowing that their return to liberty de pended on a compliance with this rule, would redouble their industry, and would never be idle; whereas, at pre sent, not having such a stimulus to work, they often ne glect their tasks, and are turned loose without a dollar, and renew their depredations on society to satisfy the calls of hunger. When the amount of the convict's work has been unavoidably less than their expenses, during their confinement.or only equal thereto, owing to sickness, they ought to have the above sums presented to them, if resi dent in the town or county of their confinement ; and a committee of the inspectors ought to attend to the remo val of the convicts to their proper homes, in case of their coming from a distance. A preferable plan is to keep them
in solitude without work, during the whole period of their sentences, and then to present them with five, ten, or fif teen dollars, acquainting them at the time, that in the event of their being again convicted, they would inevita bly be transported for life to a place, whence their escape would be hopeless. Such a plan would constitute perfec tion in criminal jurisprudence; and, when adopted, will clear our jails of all old convicts, and greatly diminish the number of first offences.
It does not follow that "labour must be abandoned in solitary confinement ;" for the cells may be constructed of dimensions to admit of it ; nor cannot it be consider dered "an abandonment of the views of the economists," if work were wholly restricted, as it is very probable that in the end, a saving to the public would ensue, if the con victs were kept idle ; for, 1. They would wear fewer clothes than when at work.
2. They might do well with two meals a day, instead of three, which are now given.
3. The quantity of food at each meal would be diminish ed, from the lessened appetite arising from want of exer cise in the open air.
4. The horrors of confinement would be so lasting, that the criminals once subjected to it for a proper length of time, (not a few months,) will he effectually deterred from risking a repetition of them, by the commission of crimes in a state where such punishment awaits them. Besides, a continuation, of the plan of working convicts is the less important at present, and probably for some years to come, will not deserve consideration, in conse quence of the difficulty of making sale of the product of their labour ; and even supposing that they remained wholly idle during their confinement, still economy would ensue, for it may be taken for granted, that from the cause just mentioned, the prison, after a few years, will contain but a small number of inhabitants. Respice ,finem, ought to be the motto in all attempts at reforma tion of abuses, or national improvements.
Another objection to solitary confinement, is the fear of making the convicts " maniacs, if it does not destroy them." But this is altogether imaginary, being contrary to experience in such cases. The records of the bastile of France, and other prisons in Europe, show, that men have been confined for ten, twenty, and even more than thirty years, in solitary cells, without loss of reason or life. Most of us have read the interesting story of the confine ment of Henry Masers de la Tude, who, with but little in terruption, was immured in the hostile from 1749 to 1784:* and what American youth has not been roused to indigna tion, at the sufferings of the high-minded but imprudent Trenck, who for ten years groaned in the dungeon of Magdeburg, by order of the Prussian tyrant, whom it is the fashion to call, the great Frederick ? Every one ac quainted with the history of France has read, that Count Lauzun was shut up by Louis the XIVth, in the castle of Pignerol, from 1672 to 1634, and deprived of light, except a glimmering through a slit in the roof, and of all com fort, even of books, ink, or paper, without occupation or exercise, a prey to hope deferred, and constant horrors ; and yet we are not informed of any insanity following. Bloquiere also, in his interesting letters on Spain,t says, he knew one person being shut up in the dungeon of the inquisition, for six years, but does not mention any in jury to his mind. Our enterprising fellow citizen, W. D.
Robinson, was confined in the year 1817, in a loath some cell, an " infernal prison," under one of the ram parts of the castle of San Juan de Ulua, near Vera Cruz, for eleven months.1 Our own prisons furnish additional proofs in point. By a reference to the keeper of the Philadelphia prison, and to an inspector, who has been for fifteen years almost successively in office, I have ascertained that some of the convicts have been confined for nearly a year in a cell. The diet, during-, part of the time, (about two weeks,) of those confined for long periods, is what is called " cell allowance," viz half a pound of bread per day, with water. Afterwards some soup is allowed ; then a little meat twice a week, and at a more advanced stage, three times a week. It is not deemed necessary to state the particular cases, or to multiply proofs of a fact which is known to all who have had any intercourse with the prison, and of which any one may be fully satisfied by application to the keeper or board of inspectors. The man in the Philadelphia prison, be fore referred to, stated, that he was confined in a cell of the jail in Rhode Island, of smaller dimensions than those of Philadelphia, during ten months and twenty-one days; that during three months of the time he was chained to the floor, and that he had two meals in a day.