A Former Prisoner’s Criticism of Prison Methods and His Suggestions for Reform HE young poet known to the public only as "John Carter," who received his discharge from the state penitentiary at Stillwater, Minn. a few months ago, on the
commutation of his sentence from ten to five years (see 22 Green Bag 337), has written an article in the September Century setting forth his personal impressions with regard to the régr'me of this institution. He was subjected to a rather strict discipline at Stillwater. and at a time when much of the dis cussion of penal problems, especially in the popular magazines, is tainted with senti mentalism and prejudice, it is a pleasure to note that he has succeeded in presenting a fair. dispassionate criticism of the methods in use at Stillwater, and typical of the better class
of American prisons, which is to be accepted as a truly useful and instructive document. On his entrance into the penitentiary he at once discovered that the state did not “pamper" its prisoners, but that the re pressive system was in full sway, and he
describes the methods of the institution, which evidently is well administered. His account does not reveal any grave faults in these methods.
He found the discipline strict,
the food by no means ideal, and many desirable privileges withheld, but notwith standing all this, his article goes to prove that severe punitive methods can be employed without injustice or brutality. In some respects, however, this article shows that the system can be improved upon without so radically and completely changing it as to run into the danger of sentimental leniency. For example, prisoners should not be subjected to so much espionage and suspi cion as to deprive them of all sense of self respect; and it would also be well to give them
more opportunity for exercise in the open air. But the author's criticisms can best be set forth by quotation:— “The sentimentalist cannot support a course of procedure which brings suffering to any body; many men of strict integrity entertain the theory, ‘Once a thief, always a thief.' Between these extremes lie the right and expedient theory and practice. My present object is merely to present a few facts that
should be borne in mind in discussing this subject. “In the first place, the silent system, if strictly adhered to, is in itself a. punishment of the severest nature. Men are naturally gregarious, and as mentality decreases, the gregarious instinct increases. It has been found necessary to abolish the barbarous method of confining prisoners in ‘separate cells by day as well as by night; it will ulti mately be found advisable to permit con versation during the daytime. This may seem to menace discipline, but a careful supervision would remedy the defect. It may be argued that the efiect would be to corrupt the less hardened offenders, and under present conditions there is much truth in this point of view. It is, however, becoming obvious that first ofienders should not be mingled indiscriminately with those whose life has been spent in criminal pursuits. Curiously enough this principle is recognized in England, a country in which the science of penology is in its infancy. ' "Another fact worthy of careful considera tion is that there are many in confinement the necessity of which has passed. While the word of a prisoner is never unreservedly
accepted against that of a guard, there are men in Stillwater who are so trusted-so respected, if I may use the word— that their denial of an accusation would make it desirable for the accuser to bring strong corroborative evidence. In this connection, there seems a. defect in the system under which pardons and commutations are granted, at any rate in Minnesota. The Board of Pardons in that state consists of the Governor, the Chief Justice,
and
the
Attorney-General.
In
granting clemency, the board. by its own admission, regards only the circumstances under which the crime was committed. That is to say, if the applicant proves his inno cence he may be pardoned, and if he shows extenuating circumstances his sentence may be commuted. "This method seems to put the most im
portant point of all out of consideration— the present character of the applicant. Not what he was five, ten, or twenty years ago,
