The Journal of Prison Discipline and Philanthropy (New Series, No. 40, January 1901)Pennsylvania Prison Society
Religion
The Journal of Prison Discipline and Philanthropy (New Series, No. 40, January 1901)
Pennsylvania Prison Society
Charities -- Periodicals; Prisons -- Periodicals
This is not a trade, but a system of teaching, by draughting plans,
used in manual training-schools and some of our reformatories. It ought
to be introduced in all our reformatories, and would be extremely
useful in the prisons among those of long terms with work, for it
establishes practical thoughts as a foundation for a trade when
dismissed.
NOVEL PUNISHMENT.
When Mayor James L. Schaadt, of Allentown, Pa., began his office a year
ago, new ideas were inaugurated for evildoers, and generally with good
effect. When but a few days in office, a party of boys were brought
before him on some trivial charge of disorder. The offence needed some
punishment, and the parents were too poor to pay even a small fine. The
Mayor learned the family shingle was still in use in the boys’ homes,
and as the boys were too young to send to the station-house for a day
or two, the Mayor sent the boys home with instructions that they should
be soundly spanked by their parents as a punishment, and to report at
court the next day whether their sentence had been carried out. The
scheme worked well until some of the fathers refused to do it, then the
Mayor did it himself until he tired of it, and finally it was required
to be done in the court-room by the police officer; the plan has worked
well and the number has greatly decreased.
On many prisoners fines are imposed, and he trusts them to be paid on
instalments, and they never fail to satisfy the obligation. It acts as
a deterrent to committing a like crime. Squads of tramps are put to
work on the city streets without guard, and they very soon skip out of
town, fearing re-arrest and a long sentence.
THE WHIPPING-POST.
Judge S. C. Baldwin, of Philadelphia, is in favor of the lash, or
whipping-post, for incorrigible boys, and especially for wife-beaters,
as they are often the only support of the wife and children. The
September Grand Jury made such a recommendation before Judge
Pennypacker, and he considered it worthy of consideration. But most
of our Judges considered it not in harmony with the twentieth century
ideas, and were unwilling to express any decided opinion offhand, as
the whipping-post was a radical change. Judge Michael Arnold thought
it would shock the public mind too much, and that the reason why our
present plans fail is because the prisoner has too easy a time in jail,
not required to work. Judge Robert N. Wilson held that in detaining a
husband it often caused more suffering to the wife and children to be
deprived of support, and it was a serious question whether it would not
be degrading and lower a man’s whole moral nature.
Judge Wm. W. Whitbank thought the matter too radical to be decided
without a careful consideration.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account