Jersey & Guernsey Law Review – February 2009
CRIME AND CRIMINALS IN JERSEY
IN 1880
A
Chapter I
The habitual
criminal class
1 The
first thought of a writer, whose aim is to draft out a scheme of reform, or to
indicate some of its main features, must necessarily be to find out as much as
he possibly can relative to the persons who are to be the main object of such a
reform.
2 Who
are the habitual criminals in Jersey?—the lists annexed, marked
relatively A and B, which have been carefully compiled from the records of the
Police Court, will embrace every member of that class, not at present
undergoing a lengthy sentence of imprisonment, or of penal servitude. List A
comprises all persons who, during the years 1877, 1878 and 1879, have appeared
three times or more before the Police Magistrate, on distinct charges.
3 It
is readily admitted that it would be unjust, and perhaps libellous, to brand
with the epithet of “habitual criminal” every person who may have
appeared three times before the Police Magistrate, during three consecutive years, and it is with some diffidence that the
writer annexes the list marked A; but nevertheless, a list of that description
is of the highest value, as showing the number and the individuality of the
persons who are, if not habitually, at all events frequently,
“defendants” at the Police Court.
4 Thirty
persons have been presented three times before the Police Magistrate (and not
necessarily convicted) during the years 1877, 1878 and 1879. Twenty have been
brought up four times, and thirty-seven have been presented five times or more
during the same period.
5 The
list marked B [AQ3] shows the number and variety of offences, of which the
regular habitués of the Police Court, have been found guilty. The
persons who have not appeared since 1876 are presumed to have seen the error of
their ways, and are not included in this category. Otherwise, the whole
criminal career of each individual is followed out from his first conviction to
the month of November, 1880.
6 The
first intention of the author of these remarks, was to have taken from the
Prison Register an extract of the names of all persons admitted in the criminal
department three times or more, during the years 1877, 1878 and 1879. The
accuracy of such a statement would of course have been undisputed; but the
records of the Police Court have the undoubted advantage of showing the nature
of the offence which led to each conviction, the Prison Register being
deficient in that respect.
Chapter II
The prison as it is
7 After
having been introduced to the habitual criminal class, not only as a whole, but
individually, the question will naturally follow—“What is the
nature of the punishment which they are compelled to undergo in the Jersey
Prison, under present regulations?”
8 The
man who was yesterday condemned by the Police Magistrate, to a month’s
imprisonment with hard labour ,
was conveyed to the gaol, in the “Van” provided for that purpose,
and on entry, was thoroughly cleansed, and then clothed in the Prison suit. We
will not follow him during the remainder of the day, but will find him again
this morning in his cell, which was unlocked at seven a.m. (six in Summer). In company with the other male
prisoners, he has been allowed twenty minutes for his morning ablutions, and
has again been locked up till a few minutes before eight. A pint of thick gruel
and eight ounces of white bread, Jersey
weight, have then been served out to him in his cell, and he has remained there
till nine o’clock.
Stone-breaking has been his occupation from that hour to twelve. Confined in a
compartment separate from his companions, he has (unless incapacitated by
ill-health) been practising this elementary art. The compartments are placed on
either side of a somewhat narrow yard, and are faced with iron bars. There is
not the slightest impediment to the carrying on of conversation between the
occupants of the respective cells. It is true that there is a solitary warder
watching these men, but his attention is divided between the gang in the rear
of the building, occupied in conveying stones to and from the compartments, and
the compartments themselves; so that there is no effectual and continuous
control.
9 The
writer has ascertained from several persons (who during their past life have
been occasional inmates of this section of the Prison) that stone-breaking is a
severe punishment for the novice, whose skin, flesh and muscles are not in
training, but that it loses all its efficacy when practised by old offenders
whose hands are hardened, and whose arms are accustomed to the regular swing of
the hammer. If, therefore, the hypothetical individual to whom we are alluding
be a casual offender, undergoing hard labour for the first time, this
stone-breaking will be a punishment infinitely more severe than if he were a
regular habitué of this
department. At twelve the prisoner returns to his cell, and dinner (one pint of
soup, ox head’s meat left in, thickened with oatmeal and vegetables,
salt, one pound and a half of potatoes, and four ounces of bread) is served out
to him. From one to two it is optional for him either to attend school or take
to oakum picking. From two to sunset, in winter (six o’clock in summer),
he will again have been found in the stone yard, and from
that time till seven the next morning (six in summer), he will have been locked
up in his cell, without light; supper having been served out to him in the form
of one pint of thick gruel, and eight ounces of bread, before retiring for the
night. The prisoner therefore spends, on an average, fourteen hours out of
every twenty-four in his cell, and ten at work, meals, etc.
10 There
are now eighteen cells appropriated to the use of convicted prisoners, and ten
to the use of unconvicted prisoners, on the male
side; and seven cells set apart for the females, indiscriminately. Prisoners before their trial are
subjected to nineteen hours solitary confinement; four hours being devoted to
bodily exercise.
11 It
must also be stated that as a reward for good behaviour, prisoners are
selected, who are happy to relieve the monotony of their daily life, by
assisting in any work which may be required to be done within the walls of the
Prison; and that on the other hand, in the event of insubordination, or bad
conduct, three days solitary confinement, with bread and water diet as an
accompaniment, can be inflicted with the sanction of a visiting member, but
that no prisoner can be condemned to a severer punishment, without an order
from the Board; and, in extreme cases, when flogging is had recourse to, an Act
of the Royal Court must authorise its application.
12 Prisoners
are sometimes, but rarely, certified as first class misdemeanants by the Police
Magistrate, and they enjoy the privilege of being supplied with food by their
friends, who are also allowed to visit them at stated intervals.
13 On
the female side, hard labour is represented by oakum and horse hair picking;
and in other respects, the treatment of females is that which has already been
described; their department being effectually divided off from that of the
males. It will be necessary to add that the Staff, at the disposal of the
Governor of the Prison, is composed of four warders on the male side, and two
in the female department, and that the rules by which the Prison is governed have
been sanctioned by an Order of Her Majesty in Council, dated the 11th day of
December, 1837.
14 The
writer cannot close this abrupt, but as far as he is aware, correct description
of the Jersey Prison, without touching on a topic which cannot escape the attention
of any serious enquirer. What has been the average number of inmates during
past years? The information which the author has gathered on this head, is not
as complete as he would have desired; but it will be interesting to know that
on 12 November, 1880, there were fifteen women convicted, and one unconvicted, in the seven cells above alluded to, which, it
was stated, was a fair average,
that, at the same date, there were twenty convicted males, in the eighteen
cells provided for their accommodation; but that this number was decidedly
below the average; which, for the past eighteen months, had varied from
twenty-four to twenty-eight. It may be added, that during the month of July,
1879, there were thirty-six convicted male prisoners, and that, at that time,
twelve cells were at the disposal of the Governor of the Prison for their use.
15 From
the accounts lately issued, it will be seen that the total cost of the Jersey
Prison, from January 1st to December 31st, 1879, was £1,182 3s 1d; on the
other hand, £26 4s 10d were received for the maintenance of debtors, and
£61 14s 2d for work done by criminals. There was therefore a deficit on
the working of 1879 of £1,094 4s 1d The Crown contributed £300, and
the Island revenues were called upon to supply
the balance, that is to say £794 4s 1d.
16 After
having sketched out the main features of Prison life and discipline, as it at
present exists, the next step will be to point out the faults
and deficiencies of the system; for in order to be able to supply a remedy, a
physician must have a clear and correct idea as to the disease, the symptoms of
which alone are visible to the untutored eye of the casual observer.
Chapter III
The imperfections of
the present system
17 Is
Prison life under the present system, irksome and unbearable to the habitual
criminal, or is the treatment to which he is subjected in the outside world so
rough, that of two evils, the lesser is to be found within the gaol?
18 To
illustrate the idea which he wishes to convey, the writer will give an instance
which has fallen under his personal observation: Three years ago, on a wet
December day, he was passing the Prison, when a woman, an habitual criminal,
whose term of imprisonment had just come to an end, closed the ponderous door
behind her and stepped forth into Gloucester Street. Insufficiently clad and
weakened, not only by the abuse of alcoholic stimulant, but still further by
absolute and abrupt privation from strong drink during her imprisonment, she
tottered up the street the very image of misery. Having reached the Parade she
looked towards town, then to her left, and hesitated. Finally, after circling
round several times, she settled on a bench amid the drenching downpour. The
writer spoke to her. It was the old, old story. She was too well known for
anybody to take her in, and she knew by experience that it was useless to try
to find a lodging without money and without work. Besides, who would give work
to an habitual criminal? And yet sobered and enfeebled, she was willing to do anything
rather than go back “There”; but she knew very well that was her
only resource.
Oh! It was
pitiful!
Near a whole city full,
Home she had none.
19 Far
be it from the writer to mix up sentiment with the solution of a social
problem; but it must be admitted that no Prison discipline and treatment, which
did not reach down right cruelty, could have a deterrent effect of this woman,
when in the outside world, she was houseless and without that daily bread for
which we are taught to pray.
20 Therefore,
the two questions put by His Excellency are really one, and it is useless to
attempt making Prison life a deterrent, unless the conditions of existence are
made tolerable to the habitual criminal in ordinary life.
21 The
writer must however hasten to point out the short comings of the system used
for the repression of crime. The great evil is the absence of any
classification of criminals. The old and hardened offender is placed side by
side with the beardless boy, who, by mere accident, has come within the meshes
of the criminal law. The effect is obvious. There is the loss of personal pride
which imprisonment carries away with it; the everlasting reproach which dogs
the footsteps of the individual who has once been seen descending from the
Prison Van, and which should make the Police Magistrate reluctant to inflict
imprisonment for a first offence, unless absolutely obliged to do so. (Summary Jurisdiction Act.—11 Aug., 1879 Secs.
11, 15, 16—42, 43 Vict. C. 49.)
22 The
self-respect is gone, the devil-may-care feeling has come, and it is in that
mood that the young offender is thrown into hourly contact with the rank and
file of hardened prisoners. Immorality of every shape and form is talked of;
and in too many instances, he hastens to put into practice his newly-acquired
experience, as soon as he regains his liberty. On many an occasion, the writer
has observed the youth, whom he had seen appear for the first time at the Bar
of the Police Court, become soon after a regular attendant in the public
gallery of that Court, and has watched him hurrying anxiously to catch a
glimpse of, and to exchange a word with, the criminal who was being transferred
to the Prison Van. Hero-worship of the most dangerous kind, this deep
admiration of a boy for the distinguished criminal, who has perhaps taken
honours at that University
of Crime—the
Convict Establishment; and whose acquaintance he has made within the Prison
walls!
23 The
author was assured by a returned convict, who is now, in every respect, a
thoroughly reformed man, that he had himself trained juvenile offenders in the
Prison wards, and that he had planned robberies whilst undergoing a sentence of
imprisonment, which had been admirably carried out, by his pupils, in his
absence. On reference to the Police at that date, this information was found to
be correct, and ample evidence is at hand, if requisite. Cannot it be said,
with truth, that under these circumstances, the Prison is a training school for
habitual criminals?
On 6 of January, 1879, three youths were tried at the Criminal Assizes, for
having set fire to a thatched hut, in the Parish of St Peter. They were found
guilty, and sentenced to six months hard labour. Two of them, at least, had
been, it was amply shown, carefully and tenderly brought up, and were (this
stupid “lark” excepted) respectable boys, promising to become
useful members of society. They were compelled to follow the curriculum of the
Prison, shoulder to shoulder with the inveterate criminal; and if “evil
communications corrupt good manners,” surely they were in imminent peril.
24 The
number of cells is much below the average number of convicted prisoners; and
two, sometimes three, inmates are herded together in the same cell. The consequence of such a state of
things has been graphically described to the writer, by prisoners themselves;
but need not further be dwelt upon. The statement of its existence is
sufficient to carry with it its own condemnation.
25 The
invariable complaint made by prisoners, awaiting trial, is the excessive length
of solitary confinement to which they are subjected; and for persons who
theoretically are “not guilty”, nineteen hours seclusion, out of
every twenty four, seems to be an unwarrantable hardship.
26 Is
Prison life, under its present conditions, a punishment as well as a deterrent?
From an examination of the list B annexed, it will be seen that the habitual
criminal class can be divided into two broad sections: the Inebriates and the
non-Inebriates. For the poor besotted wretch, whose every fibre is soaked with
alcohol, the prison has, as a rule, no terrors, except the privation from gin;
and, for the ordinary habitual criminal, the prison has no charms. The monotony
of Prison life, the absence of female society, and of his occasional tobacco
and beer, and the loss of liberty, render the Prison really distasteful to him “Malo periculosam libertatem”
he certainly would say. If he could scrape together sufficient to simply exist
outside, he would rather not go in. Why then is he an habitual criminal?
Because he is branded with a stigma which he is almost powerless to efface; and
in whichever section of the social bee-hive he endeavours to find occupation,
he is ruthlessly and jeeringly expelled, and then, he falls back into the old
groove, until he finally dies in some secluded corner; or, if he live, he is at
last sentenced to penal servitude.
27 Finally,
the conclusion at which the writer has long ago arrived, is, that in the mild
form of regret for the liberty and the licence he enjoys outside, “hard
labour” is at present a punishment, and that it is a mistake to suppose
that, except in rare cases (and those are generally found amongst confirmed
dipsomaniacs) misdemeanours are committed for the mere purpose of finding a
shelter in the gaol.
Chapter IV
The remedy
28 The
first and most important step to be taken to prevent the repetition of crime,
is to seclude (as a class, of course, and not individually) the persons who
have been convicted and imprisoned three times, by order of the Police
Magistrate, or once, by judgement of the Royal Court, within the last three
years; or who have been liberated from a convict prison, within the last five
years; and who again become inmates of the gaol after judgment. For this
purpose a portion of the Prison should be set apart for the sole use of these
individuals, with a hard labour yard attached. What object would be attained by
this innovation?
29 Firstly,
this seclusion and isolation of the “habitués”
of the Prison would, most certainly, have the effect of deepening the
dreariness and loneliness of their daily life, and would consequently increase
the punishment inflicted. Prisoners have told the writer that it was a great
alleviation to them to see the new faces coming in, and to hear the news
brought from outside; and although this classification would not entirely put
an end to their gratification, in this respect, it would reduce it to a
considerable extent.
30 Secondly,
under this system, a special treatment could be adopted for the punishment of
the récidiviste,
if it were thought practicable so to do. Of what should that special treatment
consist? After having waded through treatises on Prison discipline, as it ought
to be, and paid a tribute of admiration to the confusion and conflict of
opinions on the subject, the writer has fallen back on the Act of Parliament
governing the administration of Prisons, other than convict establishments (28
& 29 Vict. Cap. 126, commonly called the Prison
Act 1865) in order to find out of what hard labour consisted in English prisons;
Sec. 19 says—
“Hard labour for the
purposes of this Act shall be of two classes, consisting first of work at the treadwheel, shot drill, crank, capstan, stone breaking, or
such other like description of hard bodily labour, as may be appointed by the
Justices, in sessions assembled, with the approval of the Secretary of State;
which work is hereinafter referred to as hard labour of the first class.”
(Hard labour of second class is not defined.)
31 The
next step was to ascertain, what length of time each day “hard
labour” was inflicted on an inmate of a penal settlement; for it would be
hardly judicious, nor would it be just, to make punishment in the local Prison
more severe, than that deemed sufficient for convicts. For this purpose, the
different reports that have been issued for four years by
the Directors of Convict Prisons (Col Du Cane, RE, Chairman) were obtained.
Time appropriated for labour
|
1. In convict prisons (before 1878)
|
Prison
|
h.m in summer
|
h.m. in winter
|
1. Fulham
|
11.0
|
11.0
|
2. Millbank
|
10.0
|
10.0
|
3. Portland
|
9.35
|
7.45
|
4. Woking
(females)
|
9.35
|
9.35
|
5. Pentonville
|
9.15
|
9.15
|
6. Woking
(males)
|
9.10
|
7.35
|
7. Wormwood Scrubs
|
9.10
|
7.35
|
8. Chatham
|
9.10
|
7.20
|
9. Brixton
|
9.00
|
9.00
|
10. Borstal
|
8.30
|
6.55
|
11. Dartmoor
|
8.30
|
6.55
|
12. Parkhurst
|
8.30
|
6.55
|
13. Portsmouth
|
8.30
|
6.55
|
In 1878, a uniform
time-table for all convict Prisons was adopted, with an average of eight hours
a day hard labour.
|
2. Labourers outside
|
|
|
h.m in summer
|
h.m in winter
|
|
10.0
|
9.0
|
|
|
|
|
3. Jersey Prison
|
|
|
h.m in summer
|
h.m in winter
|
|
7.30
|
6.0
|
32 On
comparing these time lists, it will at once be perceived that the hard labour
prisoner in Jersey, has less work than any
convict; or than he would have if he were compelled to gain his daily bread
outside. It will also be remarked that convicts rise at 5 a.m in
Summer, and 5.30 in Winter, whilst in Jersey,
prisoners rise at six in Summer and seven in Winter. It must be admitted that
the hard labour prisoner should not have less work than the honest labourer in
the outside world; The writer would suggest a reform in this respect, for the
habitual criminal ward only. On the other hand, he would not propose any change
in the nature of the “hard labour” now adopted. (When the human
body is accustomed to any hard labour, it is no longer a punishment.)
33 It
is true that the same public, which was screaming itself hoarse at the
heartless treatment of prisoners, when moved by the death of Harriet Gilbert,
is now urging the administrators of the Prison to increased severity; but,
although the velvet-gloved hand of sentimental philanthropy is out of place,
when dealing with individuals, who, in many cases, have lost the dignity common
to our nature; still, the dictates of humanity must be strictly obeyed.
34 Besides,
what other “hard labour” is at hand? The “silent
system,” (the effect of which has frequently been observed by the writer
on unconvicted prisoners) when prolonged, has a
tendency to dull the intellectual faculties, and to make a man a brute, and
should only be used for breaches of Prison discipline, and for short periods of
time. The Governor of the gaol should have in this department power to condemn
prisoners to three days’ seclusion with bread and water, for offences committed within the Prison walls. Section 57 of the
Prison Act above alluded to, gives this power to gaolers in England, for
certain specified offences. (Appendix D.) The safeguard against oppression is
found in the fact that the visiting Justice can always be appealed to by the
recipient of this punishment.
35 As
to the prison diet, the writer is informed that the food supplied is
unnecessarily abundant, and contrasts favourably with that at the disposal of
the poor labourer with a family, often without work, and who has trouble to
keep body and soul together; but he feels that he cannot insist on this point,
without trespassing on the domain of medical science. The author begs to
submit, that the reform he here indicates would have in a certain degree the
desired effect of rendering imprisonment a punishment, and a deterrent. But not
only from that point of view, must this reform be viewed, but from another,
which must appeal with still greater force, to the sympathetic attention of
those in authority: the preservation of juvenile, and casual offenders, from
being brought within the fatal circle and influence of the old and hardened
inhabitants of the gaol.
36 Under
present regulations, even admitting the number of cells to have been increased,
so as to contain one inmate each, there are numerous opportunities for
conversation between prisoners; and it must necessarily be so, unless all are
condemned to solitary confinement, which is impracticable. Yet it is
self-evident what fearful results must be realized, when the mere lad is
brought into daily communication with the vicious being, who has reached the
lowest stage of degradation.
37 The
author will here introduce a paragraph from the report of the Directors of
Convict Prisons (1876. p. vii), which would apply with equal force to Jersey—
“The Directors are not
without hope, that circumstances may permit of further measures being taken,
from time to time, to carry out such a distribution of prisoners, as may still
more diminish the chance of those who are well disposed being, to their disadvantage,
brought into contact with the more corrupt and dangerous among their fellows,
and from preventing the latter from setting a bad example to, or acquiring an
evil influence among, the orderly and well behaved.”
38 The
writer will now bring to bear, on this subject, an essay contributed to the Revue des Deux Mondes 15th January, 1879, and which, with other works,
has succeeded in opening the door of the French Academy
to its eminent author, Le Comte Othenin d’Haussonville.
The broad features of the different methods adopted in French Government
Prisons, are sketched out, and the reader will gather much
valuable information with respect to the system followed, and to the
classification adopted, in each establishment.
“Il est nécessaire
[says the writer], “que dans
la pratique, ces délinquans, auxquels la
langue administrative donne le nom de ‘jeunes adultes,’ soient l’objet d‘un traitement spécial. Il y a
longtemps que la science pénitentiaire a proclamé
cette nécessité.
... Il faut le dire bien
haut; tout individu qui a subi
une peine en commun, sous une discipline aussi relâchée que celle des prisons de la Seine
est, à moins de quelque cause de préservation
particulière, irrévocablement
corrompu. ... Il faudra établir entre eux des
classifications rationnelles, sur
les trois bases de l’âge.
des antécédens,
et de la nature de l’infraction commise. Les quartiers de jeunes adultes seront une des pierres angulaires
de ce système.”
39 The
writer cannot close this section of his remarks without expressing his regret
that Jersey, otherwise so richly endowed with charitable institutions, and
which possesses an Industrial School (a model in every respect) should be
without its sister-establishment-a Reformatory; whilst in England and Scotland,
there are sixty-five Institutions of that nature, with a population of 5,615
children; and in France fifty-nine with 9,053 inmates,
and the result produced in England and Scotland is that 72% of the boys and 74%
of the girls become, in after life, useful members of society.
40 It
will be necessary, however, to examine, whether, from financial considerations
(which must never be lost sight of) the proposal to create a new department of
the Prison, can be entertained. It is always a fair
question to ask a reformer: “How much will your remedy cost?” and
“How would you set to work to carry it out?”
41 Every
thoughtful person who has had occasion to visit the Prison must have been
struck with the fact, that a very large portion of the main building, and the
principal yard, are monopolised by imprisoned debtors. The writer is aware that
the discussion of imprisonment for debt is without the scope of the present
essay, but he cannot refrain from pointing out that, were it abolished, twelve
cells would be placed at the disposal of the Prison authorities, for the
purpose of carrying out the reform suggested, and the financial question would
no longer be in his way. He would therefore plead, “les circonstances atténuantes”
for introducing a few brief remarks, on this subject—
“Imprisonment for simple
debt has disappeared from the Statute-Book of England, as it has from that of France.
It is the broken reed on which
reckless credit rests.
It punishes the industrious and
unfortunate father of a family, and it produces no deterrent effect on the
spendthrift.”
42 The
writer would also ask leave to urge that in January 1871, an influential
Committee of the States took this view of the subject and endorsed Deputy
Vickery’s Bill, which was only thrown out by a narrow majority of the
Legislative Assembly.
43 Whatever
may be thought of the Bill alluded to, the author ventures to express a hope
that Sir Robert-Pipon Marett,
under whose guidance and control, the administration of Justice in Jersey has
been brought into thorough working order, will throw his influence in the
scale, when this question is submitted to the States, in order to wipe out what
even friendly critics of local institutions, consider to be a blot on our
civilization.
44 The
States have voted a thousand pounds for a sufficient number of cells, to
accommodate each individual prisoner, and it will therefore be useless to touch
upon this topic. It will, however, be interesting to know how the Prison Act
above referred to, deals with this subject. Section 17 runs as follows—
“In every Prison, separate
cells shall be provided, equal to the number of prisoners who have been
confined in such Prison at any time during each of the preceding five
years.”
45 On
the question of the treatment of unconvicted
prisoners, more stress must be laid. A great maxim of our Law is, that “a
man is innocent until he is declared guilty by a competent authority,”
and, although the interests of society require that an accused person should,
in most cases, be kept in safe custody before trial, nothing can justify,
either the semblance or the reality of a punishment. It is proposed, therefore,
that the unconvicted prisoner should have all the
liberty consistent with his safe-keeping, and that, at all events from six in
the morning to sunset, his compulsory confinement in his cell, should be
entirely done away with.
46 It
is objected, however, that a large proportion of persons waiting trial are
habitual criminals, who, although not having a word to say in their defence,
would plead “Not Guilty” for the mere purpose of enjoying the
relative ease and liberty which would, under the proposed arrangement, be found
in the unconvicted section of the gaol. This is an
additional argument for dividing off habitual criminals, even before trial; for
all the arguments which have been presented against promiscuous intercourse
between old offenders and casual inmates, apply, with equal force, to prisoners
in this department. The present system may be applicable to the habitual
criminal class, but should not be inflicted on the ordinary individual, who may
soon be found innocent at the Assizes.
47 Another
objection to this reform, is found in the fact that the passage used by unconvicted prisoners for exercise, is only divided off by iron bars from the yard set aside for debtors; and that,
for obvious reasons, it is unadvisable to increase the opportunities for
conversation, between these two classes of inmates. The answer to that is, that
those opportunities for conversation should not exist at all. Clause IV of
Section 17 of the Prison Act states—
“In a Prison, where
debtors are confined [imprisonment for simple debt has since been abolished],
means shall be provided for separating them altogether from the criminal
prisoners.”
Indeed the writer would venture to add this fact to the
arguments already presented, with the object of abolishing imprisonment for
debt.
B
Chapter II
48 The
released prisoner should not be turned out, into the street, absolutely without
means. The Prison Regulations, art. 12, give power to the Board “to cause
to be paid, a moderate sum of money, to any and every discharged prisoner, who
shall not have the means of returning to his or her place of settlement; or
resorting to any place of employment or honest occupation, as in the judgment
of such Board shall be requisite and necessary for such purpose.” There
is no further provision made for discharged prisoners.
49 The
writer would suggest that “hard labourers” should have a minimum of
work, which they would be compelled to complete every day; and that the
estimated value of all the work which they accomplish above that minimum,
should be placed to their credit, and handed over to them, when they leave the
gaol. This minimum of work would be fixed individually by the Governor of the
gaol, as it must vary according to the age, health, and strength of the
prisoners. This reform would be an incentive to labour, and would be more
fruitful in its effects, then mere compulsion; and, on the other hand, it would
place at the disposal of most discharged prisoners, a small sum of money,
sufficient to meet their absolute wants for a short period, whilst seeking for
employment. At Poissy, a Prison which is conducted on
the most approved modern principles, this rule is adopted:—
“Une industrie dont l’apprentissage est facile,
le claquage des chaussons, permet à chacun d’eux de se faire, en douze
ou treize mois, un pécule qui peut varier de 100 à 150
francs ; et qui, à sa libération,
le préservera de tomber
sur-le-champ dans la
misère, et par suite, dans le crime, en lui donnant le temps de chercher de l’ouvrage.”
(Comte O. D’Haussonville. Essay above alluded
to).
As to prisoners not condemned to hard
labour, the produce of their work, whatever that might be, should be handed
over to them on leaving.
50 It
is submitted that when a prisoner is discharged, and happens to be under forty,
and in fair health, opportunities of emigration should be held out to him, in
order to place him without the reach of the bad company he usually frequents,
and to put him in a position, where his past life will not be a constant
reproach, and an impediment to finding work. The Committee of the Hospital and
the parish of St. Helier have frequently
assisted able-bodied paupers to emigrate, and with the best results; only two
of those sent out by the Parish of St. Helier, having been sent back by the Poor
Law authorities of Canada.
51 The
same difficulty arises in England,
and what steps are taken to meet it? The report of the Directors of Convict
Establishments, for the year 1877, concludes in the following manner—
“The reports of several of
the Chaplains refer to the unfortunate position in which prisoners find
themselves, on discharge, from the difficulty of finding employment. This
difficulty can only be met by the benevolent activity of the Discharged
Prisoners’ Aid Societies”.
52 The
question naturally follows—“What are these Societies on which so
much reliance is placed?” They are simply and purely charitable
associations, to the Secretary of which, the discharged prisoner may apply; and
by a system of constant inter-communication between the different Societies,
work is found in parts of the kingdom, in which the applicant is not known; and
any other relief is given which the nature of the case may require.
53 The
value of such Institutions can be estimated by the following
statement—during the six years ending 31 December, 1873, 3929 discharged convicts
were assisted by these Societies. The figures for the subsequent four years are
as follows.
|
Number of discharged convicts
|
Number assisted by Societies
|
Number not assisted
|
1874
|
1842
|
1025
|
817
|
1875
|
1831
|
1124
|
707
|
1876
|
1840
|
1196
|
644
|
1877
|
1929
|
1096
|
833
|
54 This
tabular statement will be sufficient to show what value discharged prisoners
themselves, set on these Institutions. On the other hand, it will be
satisfactory to know, that only 105 of the convicts, discharged during 1877,
had previously been assisted by Aid Societies. In 1874, there were fourteen Aid
Societies for men, and five for women. In 1878, eighteen Societies for men and
five for women. This increase will be sufficient to show that the work done by
these Societies is held in greater esteem, as time tests their efficacy.
55 “Post hoc et propter hoc.” It is
suggested that a Prisoners’ Aid Society should be formed in Jersey, which should be affiliated to kindred
associations in England;
one for males, the other for females. After
the creation of such a Society, art. 47 of the Prison Law might, with benefit,
be adopted—
“Where any prisoner is
discharged from Prison, the visiting Justices may order a sum of money, not
exceeding £2, to be paid out of any monies under their control, and
applicable to the payment of the expenses of the Prison, by the gaoler to the
prisoner himself; or to the Treasurer of a certified
Prisoners’ Aid Society, on his receiving from such Society an
undertaking, in writing, signed by the Secretary thereof, to apply the same for
the benefit of the prisoner; or, if that becomes impossible, to appropriate the
whole or any unapplied part thereof, for the benefit of such other prisoner or
prisoners discharged from the said Prison, as the visiting Justice may
direct”.
56 The
agency of this Society would meet an objection, suggested to the author, by an
“habitué” of the
Prison, as to the advisability of placing money at the disposal of discharged
prisoners; to use his own language, “The Pubs in
Gloucester Street would get the lot” and on referring to the list marked
B, the reader will appreciate the value of this remark, on noticing the
repeated convictions for being “drunk and disorderly” or
“drunk and incapable”. The Society would take care that help, in
another form than money, would be given to these people, and thus escape this
difficulty. Whilst touching on the topic of the abuse of alcoholic stimulants,
to which three quarters of habitual crime may be ascribed,
it would be interesting to discuss the question, whether the Licensing Laws are
what they ought to be, and further, whether such as they are, they are
satisfactorily carried out; but the writer’s pen is arrested by the fear,
that in so doing, he would be travelling out of the Record.
57 When
Society shall have done everything in its power, to help the discharged
prisoner, experience shows that there still will be a “residuum” of
vicious and evil-disposed individuals, upon whom all benevolent efforts will
have been thrown away. For such, the iron-gloved hand of repressive Justice
must be used; and the Act for the more effectual Prevention of Crime (34 and 35
Vict. C. 112, 21 August, 1871 )
should form the basis of their treatment. The aim and object of this Act is, to
isolate and punish, with greater severity, the habitual criminal, and to render
his existence, as such, very nearly intolerable.
58 A
person twice convicted may be subjected to Police Supervision, and in that
case, shall notify the place of his residence, or any change of habitation, to
the Chief Officer of Police of his district, and shall report himself to that
Officer once every month. The question follows whether the Police force of St. Helier is sufficiently well organised to be able to
carry out the provisions of this Act? Upon this question, the writer, although
a Conservative Jerseyman, holds strong views; but
upon this subject as upon others bearing a close relationship to the treatment
of the Criminal Classes, he dares not at present touch, fearing to outstep the
limits of the competition.
59 The
writer cannot close these remarks, without expressing an earnest desire that
they should be taken into serious consideration. Not only for the purposes of
this work, but long before it was dreamt of, he has come into contact with
facts which have led him to believe that many a criminal was “more sinned
against than sinning,” and it is with the sad story of the last Jersey convict,
still ringing in his ears, that he ventures to appeal to the administrators of
the Prison to weigh, with care, the facts contained in the present Essay.
Appendix
List A
Names of persons who have been presented three times or
more, during 1877, 1878, and 1879, before the Police Magistrate—
|
Number of times presented
|
Allen, John, alias Jack Straw
|
5
|
Baldwin, Catherine, femme Lee
|
4
|
Bazile, Auguste
Yves
|
4
|
Bennett, Elias James
|
4
|
Blampied, John
|
8
|
Blampied, Mary-Ann
|
3
|
Blampied, Phil. Chas
|
3
|
Blampied, Philippe
|
6
|
Bodicott, Elizabeth
|
3
|
Boutillier Le, Charles
|
4
|
Breen, Alice
|
3
|
Brun Le, Mary
|
4
|
Carter, John
|
5
|
Carter, Maria, femme Pomfrey
|
3
|
Cawley, James
|
8
|
Champelle, Louisa
|
8
|
Clercq Le, Caroline, femme
Heron
|
3
|
Clercq, Le, Thos
|
3
|
Clifford, Ann, femme Tout
|
5
|
|
Number of times presented
|
Connel, Charles
|
4
|
Coupé, Clémence,
femme Le Terrier
|
3
|
Cousinard, Louis
|
4
|
Cox, Susan
|
3
|
Delouches, George
|
12
|
Desborough, Louisa
|
7
|
Druce, Wm
|
3
|
Dubois, Mary-Ann
|
3
|
Dunphy, Michael
|
4
|
Durant, David
|
4
|
Duval, Pierre Jules
|
5
|
England, Joseph
|
4
|
Ennis, Thos
|
10
|
Enwright, Wm
|
9
|
Escott, John
|
3
|
Esnouf, Thos. Isaac
|
5
|
Filleul, Philip
|
3
|
Gilbert, James
|
3
|
Gilman, Joseph
|
6
|
Godfray, Frances
|
3
|
Hansford, Wm
|
12
|
Hattfield, Ellen, femme Odgers
|
3
|
Healy, James
|
8
|
Healy, Patrick
|
4
|
Hibbs, Thos
|
5
|
Holmes, Maria, femme Enwright
|
15
|
Hunter, Charles
|
5
|
Huquet Le, Mary-Rachel
|
3
|
Huquet Le, Rachel
|
4
|
Ivy, Phil
|
9
|
Jackman, —
|
3
|
Jandrell, Henry
|
3
|
Keamish, Benjamin
|
3
|
Keene, John
|
4
|
Kenny, Joseph
|
6
|
Leonard, Susan
|
6
|
Lilicrap, John
|
3
|
|
Number of times presented
|
Loison, Rosalie
|
3
|
Marett, François
|
9
|
Marguérie, Théodore
|
|
McAuliffe, Mary
|
15
|
McFarlane, Mary
|
4
|
Mercier, Jane-Marie, femme Dubreuil
|
4
|
Morissey, Michael
|
3
|
Mourant, Jane
|
4
|
Newham, John
|
3
|
Norman, Victoria
|
3
|
O’Brien, William
|
10
|
Oates, Henry
|
5
|
Petticart, Le, Frs
|
3
|
Piez, Le, Josué
|
5
|
Power, Ellen, femme Donovan
|
4
|
Quenault, John
|
3
|
Quesne, Le, Nicolas
|
4
|
Regan, Ellen
|
16
|
Reid, Edwin, dit
Babot
|
13
|
Renouf, Ellen, femme Jandrell
|
5
|
Ricou, Alfred
|
6
|
Roussel, Hy
|
4
|
Ruse, Wm
|
4
|
Ryan, Bridget
|
15
|
Ryan, Kate
|
3
|
Ryan, Michael
|
14
|
Ryan, Thomas
|
4
|
Smith, Harriet
|
10
|
Stone, Edward
|
3
|
Stone, John
|
6
|
Tanner, Mary Ann, femme Bold
|
3
|
Toms, James
|
9
|
Wallis, Alexander
|
5
|
Yves, Pierre, dit
Bazile
|
3
|
List
B
Habitual criminals
1. BENJAMIN GERARD has been convicted since 1874, December 4th
to 1880, January 15th:—
|
|
For Assault
|
1
|
|
For Petty Larceny
|
1
|
|
For Intemperance
and Interruption of the Peace
|
4
|
|
For Miscellaneous Charges
|
1
|
|
Making a total of seven
convictions; and has been sent before the Royal Court
|
0
|
2. WILLIAM ENWRIGHT
has been convicted since 1865, April 20th to November 6th, 1879 :—
|
|
For Assault
|
3
|
|
For Petty Larceny
|
0
|
|
For Intemperance
and Interruption of the Peace
|
10
|
|
Miscellaneous Charges
|
6
|
|
Making a total of nineteen
convictions; and hasbeen sent before the Royal Court
|
1
|
3. JOHN GRADY has been convicted
since 1856, April 2nd to 1880, March 1st:—
|
|
For Assault
|
8
|
|
For Petty Larceny
|
4
|
|
For Intemperance
and Interruption of the Peace
|
4
|
|
For Miscellaneous Charges
|
3
|
|
Making a total of nineteen
convictions; and has been sent before the Royal Court
|
4
|
4. EUGENE SULLIVAN has been
convicted since 1862, July 7 to August 3rd, 1880:—
|
|
For Assault
|
5
|
|
For Petty Larceny
|
4
|
|
For Intemperance
and Interruption of the Peace
|
11
|
|
For Miscellaneous Charges
|
9
|
|
Making a total of twenty-nine
convictions; and has been sent before the Royal Court
|
4
|
5. EDWIN REID DIT BABOT
has been convicted since 1873, March 3rd to 1879, May 10th:—
|
|
For Assault
|
1
|
|
For Petty Larceny
|
3
|
|
For Intemperance
and Interruption of the Peace
|
10
|
|
For Miscellaneous Charges
|
4
|
|
Making a total of eighteen
convictions; and has been sent before the Royal Court
|
1
|
6. JOHN ALLEN has been convicted
since 1865, May 1st to 1877, October 1st:—
|
|
For Assault
|
0
|
|
For Petty Larceny
|
11
|
|
For Intemperance
and Interruption of the Peace
|
1
|
|
For Miscellaneous Charges
|
11
|
|
Making a total of twenty-three
convictions; and has been sent before the Royal Court
|
0
|
7. FRANCIS MARETT has been convicted
since 1872, June 20th to 1880, November 11th:—
|
|
For Assault
|
6
|
|
For Petty Larceny
|
4
|
|
For Intemperance
and Interruption of the Peace
|
4
|
|
For Miscellaneous Charges
|
2
|
|
Making a total of sixteen
convictions; and has been sent before the Royal Court
|
3
|
8. WILLIAM O’BRIEN has been
convicted since 1878, May 16th to 1879, May 17th:—
|
|
For Assault
|
0
|
|
For Petty Larceny
|
6
|
|
For Intemperance
and Interruption of the Peace
|
0
|
|
For Miscellaneous Charges
|
4
|
|
Making a total of ten
convictions; and has been sent before the Royal Court
|
0
|
9. MICHAEL DUNPHY has been
convicted since 1878, May 25th to 1880, May 10th:—
|
|
For Assault
|
0
|
|
For Petty Larceny
|
5
|
|
For Intemperance
and Interruption of the Peace
|
0
|
|
For Miscellaneous Charges
|
1
|
|
Making a total of six
convictions; and has been sent before the Royal Court
|
1
|
10. THOMAS HARRIS has been
convicted since 1864, March 19th to 1880, July 31st:—
|
|
For Assault
|
2
|
|
For Petty Larceny
|
0
|
|
For Intemperance
and Interruption of the Peace
|
4
|
|
For Miscellaneous Charges
|
18
|
|
Making a total of twenty-six
convictions; and has been sent before the Royal Court
|
1
|
11. THOMAS ENNIS has been
convicted since 1875, Sept 11th to 1880, May 10th:—
|
|
For Assault
|
2
|
|
For Petty Larceny
|
0
|
|
For Intemperance
and Interruption of the Peace
|
12
|
|
For Miscellaneous Charges
|
0
|
|
Making a total of fourteen
convictions; and has been sent before the Royal Court
|
2
|
12. JOHN DE LA COUR has been
convicted since 1854, February 27th to 1879, September 8th:—
|
|
For Assault
|
11
|
|
For Petty Larceny
|
2
|
|
For Intemperance
and Interruption of the Peace
|
3
|
|
For Miscellaneous Charges
|
8
|
|
Making a total of twenty-four
convictions; and has been sent before the Royal Court
|
5
|
13. PHILIP IVY has been convicted
since 1863, June 22 to 1880, January 3rd:—
|
|
For Assault
|
4
|
|
For Petty Larceny
|
5
|
|
For Intemperance
and Interruption of the Peace
|
2
|
|
For Miscellaneous Charges
|
3
|
|
Making a total of fourteen
convictions; and has been sent before the Royal Court
|
10
|
14. PHILIP MILIKIN has been
convicted since 1873, May 8th to 1880, July 6th:—
|
|
For Assault
|
1
|
|
For Petty Larceny
|
9
|
|
For Intemperance
and Interruption of the Peace
|
0
|
|
For Miscellaneous Charges
|
1
|
|
Making a total of eleven
convictions; and has been sent before the Royal Court
|
0
|
15. PATRICK HEALEY has been
convicted since 1872, December 3rd to 1880, May 6th:—
|
|
For Assault
|
2
|
|
For Petty Larceny
|
0
|
|
For Intemperance
and Interruption of the Peace
|
3
|
|
For Miscellaneous Charges
|
2
|
|
Making a total of seven
convictions; and has been sent before the Royal Court
|
0
|
16. GEORGE DELOUCHES has been
convicted since 1872, August 10th to 1879, September 25th:—
|
|
For Assault
|
2
|
|
For Petty Larceny
|
0
|
|
For Intemperance
and Interruption of the Peace
|
13
|
|
For Miscellaneous Charges
|
2
|
|
Making a total of seventeen
convictions; and has been sent before the Royal Court
|
0
|
17. JAMES CAWLEY alias GAWLEY has
been convicted since 1869, August 20th to 1878, November 18th:—
|
|
For Assault
|
8
|
|
For Petty Larceny
|
6
|
|
For Intemperance
and Interruption of the Peace
|
4
|
|
For Miscellaneous Charges
|
2
|
|
Making a total of twenty
convictions; and has been sent before the Royal Court
|
6
|
18. WILLIAM HANSFORD has been
convicted since 1873, January 25th to 1879, March 20th:—
|
|
For Assault
|
0
|
|
For Petty Larceny
|
2
|
|
For Intemperance
and Interruption of the Peace
|
13
|
|
For Miscellaneous Charges
|
3
|
|
Making a total of eighteen
convictions; and has been sent before the Royal Court
|
1
|
19. MARIA HOLMES, femme ENWRIGHT,
has been convicted since 1861, April 25th to 1880, July 19th:—
|
|
For Assault
|
4
|
|
For Petty Larceny
|
1
|
|
For Intemperance
and Interruption of the Peace
|
88
|
|
For Miscellaneous Charges
|
1
|
|
Making a total of fourty-four convictions; and has been sent before the Royal Court
|
1
|
20. SUSAN LEONARD, femme ANDOW,
has been convicted since 1856, March 29th to 1879, September 16th:—
|
|
For Assault
|
0
|
|
For Petty Larceny
|
0
|
|
For Intemperance
and Interruption of the Peace
|
20
|
|
For Miscellaneous Charges
|
3
|
|
Making a total of forty-three
convictions; and has been sent before the Royal Court
|
1
|
21. MARY
McAULIFFE has been convicted since 1872, August
26th to February 23rd,
1880:—
|
|
For Assault
|
0
|
|
For Petty Larceny
|
1
|
|
For Intemperance
and Interruption of the Peace
|
24
|
|
For Miscellaneous Charges
|
5
|
|
Making a total of thirty
convictions; and has been sent before the Royal Court
|
2
|
22. LOUISA CHAMPEL,
femme MOLLET, has been convicted since 1867, December 3rd to 1879, March
11th:—
|
|
For Assault
|
0
|
|
For Petty Larceny
|
3
|
|
For Intemperance
and Interruption of the Peace
|
34
|
|
For Miscellaneous Charges
|
0
|
|
Making a total of thirty-seven
convictions; and has been sent before the Royal Court
|
2
|
23. JANE MOURANT has been
convicted since 1865, Jan 5th to 1880, March 11th:—
|
|
For Assault
|
1
|
|
For Petty Larceny
|
1
|
|
For Intemperance
and Interruption of the Peace
|
20
|
|
For Miscellaneous Charges
|
9
|
|
Making a total of thirty-one
convictions; and has been sent before the Royal Court
|
10
|
24. LOUISA DESBOROUGH
has been convicted since 1858, September 23rd to 1877, August 4th:—
|
|
For Assault
|
2
|
|
For Petty Larceny
|
7
|
|
For Intemperance
and Interruption of the Peace
|
34
|
|
For Miscellaneous Charges
|
11
|
|
Making a total of fifty-four
convictions; and has been sent before the Royal Court
|
1
|
25. HARRIET SMITH has been
convicted since 1873, June 30th to 1879, September 15th:—
|
|
For Assault
|
0
|
|
For Petty Larceny
|
2
|
|
For Intemperance
and Interruption of the Peace
|
16
|
|
For Miscellaneous Charges
|
1
|
|
Making a total of nineteen
convictions; and has been sent before the Royal Court
|
0
|
26. MARY
ANN SCANDLING
has been convicted since 1864, July 11th to 1878, August 8th:—
|
|
For Assault
|
0
|
|
For Petty Larceny
|
2
|
|
For Intemperance
and Interruption of the Peace
|
14
|
|
For Miscellaneous Charges
|
3
|
|
Making a total of nineteen
convictions; and has been sent before the Royal Court
|
1
|
27. FANNY HICKS has been
convicted since 1871, February 21st to 1877, March 5th:—
|
|
For Assault
|
1
|
|
For Petty Larceny
|
1
|
|
For Intemperance
and Interruption of the Peace
|
4
|
|
For Miscellaneous Charges
|
3
|
|
Making a total of nine
convictions; and has been sent before the Royal Court
|
0
|
28. ANN
CLIFFORD, femme TOUT, has been convicted since 1875, May 31st to 1880, July
5th:—
|
|
For Assault
|
0
|
|
For Petty Larceny
|
5
|
|
For Intemperance
and Interruption of the Peace
|
2
|
|
For Miscellaneous Charges
|
5
|
|
Making a total of twelve
convictions; and has been sent before the Royal Court
|
1
|
29. BRIDGET RYAN (banished from the Island)
has been convicted since 1872, December 21st to 1880, July 5th:—
|
|
For Assault
|
0
|
|
For Petty Larceny
|
15
|
|
For Intemperance
and Interruption of the Peace
|
16
|
|
For Miscellaneous Charges
|
0
|
|
Making a total of thirty-one
convictions; and has been sent before the Royal Court
|
1
|
30. ELLEN REGAN has been
convicted since 1876, September 4th to 1880, October 12th:—
|
|
For Assault
|
2
|
|
For Petty Larceny
|
1
|
|
For Intemperance
and Interruption of the Peace
|
8
|
|
For Miscellaneous Charges
|
5
|
|
Making a total of sixteen
convictions; and has been sent before the Royal Court
|
1
|
31. SUSAN COX
has been convicted since 1873, June 10th to 1879, July 12th:—
|
|
For Assault
|
0
|
|
For Petty Larceny
|
0
|
|
For Intemperance
and Interruption of the Peace
|
5
|
|
For Miscellaneous Charges
|
6
|
|
Making a total of eleven
convictions; and has been sent before the Royal Court
|
0
|
32. MARY
McFARLANE, vve LOCKE, has
been convicted since 1862, September 23rd to January 30th 1879:—
|
|
For Assault
|
1
|
|
For Petty Larceny
|
5
|
|
For Intemperance
and Interruption of the Peace 3
For Miscellaneous Charges
|
4
|
|
Making a total of eleven
convictions; and has been sent before the Royal Court
|
3
|
MICHAEL McCARTHY
has disappeared (10 convictions)
|
HENRY JANDRELL dead (22
convictions)
|
HENRY CASTLE had disappeared (5 convictions)
|