Innovation has long been a characteristic of American society. Evidence of it can be seen in technology, automobiles, education, energy generation, medicine, etc. So, why is it that we have seen so little innovation in how our prisons are operated? To a great extent, prisons are much like they were one hundred years ago.
A logical conclusion is that our society has been locked in a prison of limited thinking that has kept transformative change from happening. Common sense ideas about how to transform our prisons into places that promote positive behavior change are very old…….and yet remain to be sufficiently implemented.
Here are examples from more than 100 years ago. In 1914, the governor of Massachusetts gave a speech to the American Prison Association and titled it “The Ideal Prison System”.
“There is no more excuse for political administration of a prison than for the political administration of a hospital, a school or a bank”.
“In my study of our court and prison methods I found, as I shall presently demonstrate, a great wastage of human lives —–a failure to reclaim and utilize them.”
“I discovered, also, that the fate of any small offender at the bar of justice depends far too much upon the temperament and theories (notions) of his particular judge, and that more attention is given to his particular act than to his character and the causes of the offense.”
From the then governor of Oregon…” My belief is that three -fourths of the men who are sent to the penitentiary are not criminals at heart, are not really worse offenders than thousands who, through some turn of fortune’s wheel, escape the stigma of a penitentiary term.”
“It is probation that must form the corner stone of our ideal prison system.”
“ It should also be said that our experience with all sorts of prisoners has proved, first of all, that merely being locked up behind iron bars is as futile for the cure of crime as it would be for the cure of any physical disease.”
“ I believe that a more scientific administration of our judicial and penal systems will result in cutting down out prison population by at least 50%, and at the same time accomplish more than is now accomplished for the community.”
“ We need business-like penal institutions for the direct good they will do prisoners, and we need them no less in order to protect the families from destitution and pauperism.”
“ In sharp distinction from our experiences in Massachusetts, I quote from the testimony of Sheriff Frank H. Tracy, of Washington County, VT. This progressive and humanitarian officer began to employ his men under a prison labor law of 1906, which provided that the prisoners should be worked under guard. Results were very poor. The men did as little work as possible and with little care as to quality. Finally, Sheriff Tracy commenced on a plan of his own, of giving the men themselves a part of their earnings. He promised them all they earned above $1 a day, and under this system the results have been remarkable. Mr. Tracy says, “We have had many a man support his family from his earnings while serving time.” The men are said to work cheerfully, to save their wages, and to be contented with the terms of their employment.”
“ But no matter what improvements are made in prisons and reformatories, they can never accomplish the results desired until the definite sentence is supplanted by one which deals scientifically with the discharge of prisoners.
Ordering the confinement of a man to prison is a judicial function. But no judge can determine, in advance, when a prisoner is fit to return to the community.”
“ He should remain until it is believed he has ceased to be a criminal. The determination of this question should be left to a board constituted for that purpose, composed of men appointed soley on the ground of special fitness. Political considerations should be absolutely excluded in their selection. Their qualifications should be equal to those of judges, though different. Their compensation should be sufficient to command the service of high grade men”
“ Mere passive obedience to ordinary prison rules cannot be accepted as proof that a prisoner is fit for liberty. There should be a system of marking covering every detail of his life, requiring his actual co-operation with the administration, and constantly testing his character. He should be released gradually, from grade to grade, with increasing liberty until at last he is allowed to go at large.”
“ This brief outline of work toward a goal of a better prison system has all been demonstrated in part in different sections of the country. It only remains to combine the separately valuable elements into a coherent system. This result is demanded not only from economic considerations, but as a moral duty which the public owes to itself.”
The Ideal Prison System by Eugene N. Foss, 1914