Abstract
Part I, Chapter 2 contains an expanded discussion of the fundamental principles of the penitentiary system in America, including its theoretical premises, its hierarchy of administration, the daily schedule of prisoners, and its financial costs. The authors argue that public opinion has a large influence over the direction of American penitentiaries, thus elevating the role of the superintendent and inspector. Tocqueville and Beaumont also compare American penitentiaries to French prison discipline, particularly on the presence of cafeterias and alcohol, the role of the contractor in the prison, and the utilization of a salary for prisoners. They include a brief discussion of the application of the penitentiary system to women and conclude with a critical analysis of the use of corporal punishment in prisons.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
*Houses of correction were one of two types of prison dedicated to prisoner labor, which was for state use only. Houses of correction were unique in that those sentenced to 1–10 years labored together, rather than in isolation. There were ten original houses of correction, and three additional prisons set aside for women.
- 2.
We will apply ourselves exclusively to expand on the penitentiary system of the United States, because that has been the only object of our investigation. If one desires documents on the prisons of Europe , one can consult the very remarkable work that has been published last year by Messrs. Julius, Lagarmitte, and Mittermayer, titled Lessons on Prisons.
- 3.
Kentucky , Tennessee , Maine and Vermont have also adopted the same system: but this innovation among themselves is too recent to furnish useful documents.
- 4.
*We consistently translate “les mœurs” as “mores” throughout the text. Tocqueville later gave his own definition of “mores” in Democracy in America: “I understand here the expression moeurs in the sense the antients attached to the word mores; not only do I apply it to mores properly so-called, which one could call habits of the heart, but to the different notions that men possess, to the various opinions that are current in their midst, and to the sum of ideas of which the habits of the mind are formed. I therefore comprehend under this word the whole moral and intellectual state of a people” (2000, p. 275).
- 5.
See the report from the commissioners-redactors of the Penal Code of Pennsylvania, 1828. —pag. 16 and especially pag. 22. — See the letter from Roberts Vaux to Roscoe, 1827. — pag. 9. — Ibid. the report made by the commission of the Baltimore Penitentiary to Governor Kent, 23 December 1818. — Ibid. Report serving as an Introduction to the Code of discipline of the prisons of Edward Livingston, pag. 21. And the letter from the same to Roberts Vaux, 1828. — Ibid. Report of John Spencer to the legislature of New York. Solitary imprisonment of the United States had many adversaries. Among its most celebrated antagonists one can mention William Roscoe of Liverpool and the General Lafayette: the first returned his opinion that he had formed on it as soon as he knew that labor was admitted into the solitary cells of Philadelphia. (See his letter to D. Hozack of New York, written on 13 July 1830, shortly before his death.) As for General Lafayette, he has always forcefully attacked the punishment of solitude. “This punishment,” he says, “does not correct the guilty. I spent several years in isolation at Olimutz, where I was imprisoned for having made a revolution, and in my prison, I only dreamt of new revolutions.” Moreover, Mr. de Lafayette’s opinion, which was created before the former system of solitude without labor was first established in Philadelphia, is perhaps modified like that of W. Roscoe, since this system has subjected itself to serious changes.
- 6.
*I translate “méchans” as “cruel” because the sense seems to be: “Qui désire provoquer, occasionnellement ou non, la souffrance physique ou morale d'autrui” (One who wishes to cause, occasionally or not, physical or psychological pain of others).
- 7.
See Introduction to the Code of the Discipline of Prisons.
- 8.
See Inquiry into the Philadelphia Penitentiary, [Appendix] no. 10.
- 9.
Everyone said to us that Sunday, day of rest, was much longer for them than the whole week.
- 10.
*It is interesting to note that, within the same paragraph, Tocqueville and Beaumont use three different words for “laziness:” “la paresse,” “la fainéantise,” and “l'oisiveté.”
- 11.
See Letter of Livingston to Roberts Vaux, 1828, pag. 7 and 8. There are certainly examples that prove the observation of silence in a few cases: that is so true that, in each of the prisons that we examined at hand, there were some punishments inflicted on those who had been surprised in fault on this point; it must be added that a certain number of contraventions remain always unknown. But the question is not whether there are some infractions; are these infractions of a nature to destroy the order of the establishment and to prevent the reform of prisoners? This is the point to examine.
- 12.
*Introduction of the important idea of “association.”
- 13.
*Rather than translate “savings” or “wage,” I keep the French word “pécule” throughout the translation to retain its meaning as the earnings of a French prisoner’s labor, part of which could be saved, but part of which could be spent while still in prison. Lieber notes in a footnote of his translation that “the pécule is now always called in America, over-stint” (Beaumont and Tocqueville 1833, p. 37). Tocqueville and Beaumont later make the argument that this two-fold use of the pécule poses a problem to the discipline of the prison because it allows prisoners to spend money on luxury items.
- 14.
He is indifferently called warden, keeper, agent, or superintendent.
- 15.
It is generally thought advantageous that the inspectors not change too often, and that they should not be all renewed at the same time. (See Report of 20 December 1830 on the Maryland Penitentiary). At Boston, they are appointed for four years. (See the law of 11 March 1828). At Philadelphia, the inspectors of the penitentiary are exempt from service in the militia, and from the responsibility of juries, from arbitrating or from overseeing the poor. (See rules of the prison.) Until 1820, there were five inspectors for the Auburn prison: it was recognized that this number was too large; and since then it was reduced to three. (See Report of 1820, by Mr. Spencer).
- 16.
*Tocqueville and Beaumont seem to refer here to the state legislature.
- 17.
At Auburn, the guaranty is 25,000 dollars (132,503 fr.). See report of 1832. — Ibid. at Singsing.
- 18.
Each inspector there receives 100 dollars (530 fr.). At Baltimore the surveillance committee annually receives 1,144 dollars (6063 fr. 20 c.). See Report of 1830.
- 19.
“We have little confidence in any system of law, unless there is a committee that often provides, through personal investigation, enforcement of the rules.” Excerpted from the report of the inspectors of Wethersfield, 1830.
- 20.
Although the salaries of the employees in the prisons of the United States are rather high, it is much less than it appears to us. The various industries are, in that country, so profitable, that any man endowed with some capacity easily finds a more advantageous career than what they are offered by the administration of prisons. And we would not see such men as Mr. Samuel Wood at the head of American penitentiaries if they were not under the influence of a nobler sentiment than the urge to make a fortune.
- 21.
See Report on the prison of Connecticut from 1830, page 1st. *Note: There is a question of whether this is printed as 11 (in Lieber’s translation) or 1 er.
- 22.
See Statistical Tables, Financial part. — Salary of the employees, Appendix No. 19.
- 23.
*Introduction of another major theme: the rule of public opinion in America.
- 24.
“It is very desirable that citizens of the state and especially gentlemen honored with the power of making and administering the laws should frequently visit this prison.” (See Report of Mr. Niles, 1819.) The new penitentiary establishments attract many curious persons who desire to visit it. In terms of the law, the superintendent can have the right to refuse them entrance; but he never makes use of this right; and all those who present themselves are admitted by paying 25 cents (1 f. 32 c.). These visits become a source of revenue for the prison, and the administration keeps account of the money that comes in. During the year 1830, the Auburn prison created, in this way alone, a total of 1,524 dollars 57 cents (8,084 f. 81 c.). See New Statutes of the State of New York. §64 art. 2 chap. 3 tit. 2 part 4, 2nd volume.
- 25.
There were 239 in 1830 in the State of New York alone; and this number has increased still more the last two years. (See Williams Register 1831 page 36.).
- 26.
Each cell is aerated by a ventilator and contains a latrine hole whose construction makes it perfectly odorless. It is necessary to have seen all the cells of the Philadelphia prison, to have passed whole days there, in order to form a precise idea of their cleanliness and the purity of the air that is breathed there.
- 27.
The cells at Auburn are much smaller than the cells of the Philadelphia prison; they are seven feet long and three and a half feet wide. A salubrious air is brought in by a ventilator.
- 28.
Furthermore, every kind of gambling is prohibited there: the regulations are uniform on this point, and faithfully executed.
- 29.
*Lieber translates: “monotonous and dumb” (Beaumont and Tocqueville 1833, p. 32).
- 30.
See Report of Mr. Gershom Powers, 1828, pag. 14.
- 31.
See New Statutes of the State of New York, 2 vol., pag. 707, § 57. If one wishes to know in detail what composes the food of the inmates at Auburn, see the report of Judge Powers, 1818, pag. 43 and the handwritten note of the accounting agent (Clerk) of Auburn. — For the food at Wethersfield, see Report on that prison, 1828, pag. 19. — For the food at Boston, see Law of 11 March 1828. — For Baltimore, see Rules and Regulations, pag. 6. 1829.
- 32.
See Report on the Wethersfield prison, 1828, page. 19.
- 33.
We indicate here only the most important points of which the order, discipline and administration of penitentiaries are composed. In order to know in detail the established rules in the new prisons, the division of hours in the day, the nature of the labors, the tasks of the employees, those of the prisoners, the nature of punishments allowed, the obligations imposed on contractors, etc. — it would be necessary to read the regulations of the Connecticut prison (Wethersfield) whose translation we give. See [Appendix] no. 13— see also the rules made for the prison of Boston by Mr. Austin the superintendent (1 January 1831). —And the two reports of Mr. Powers on Auburn, 1826 and 1828. —And finally the rules of the penitentiary of Philadelphia. We have also consulted, for this object, handwritten notes that had been delivered to us by the clerk of Auburn and by the Superintendent of Singsing (Mr. Wiltse).
- 34.
The professions practiced by the inmates of Philadelphia are weaving, shoemaking, tailoring, carpentry, etc. See Annual Reports of the Inspectors of the Penitentiary of Pennsylvania (1831).
- 35.
In the central house of detention of Melun, there is a very considerable library for the use of the inmates. It is furnished by the contractor, who the prisoners pay for the rental of each volume that they read. We can judge by this fact the nature of the books that constitute the library.
- 36.
*There is no reference to alphabetical note (t) in the main text of the first edition, although there is a note in the appendix. Lieber puts (t) here instead of (u) (Beaumont and Tocqueville 1833, p. 35). Mayer’s edition puts (t) a few paragraphs above, in the sentence: “At Boston and Singsing (t), the occupation of the inmates has been thus far more uniform.”
- 37.
See art. 4 of Section 1 of the Regulations of the Connecticut Prison, [Appendix] No. 13.
- 38.
See Report of Gershom Powers, 1828, pag. 42 —For Boston, see Regulations, 1 January 1831.
- 39.
See report of Gershom Powers, pag. 41, 1828.
- 40.
The law of the State of New York does not permit the superintendent to give more than 3 dollars to convicts when leaving (15 f. 90 c.), but he must give them the belongings that they need to clothe themselves with, except the value of these belongings cannot exceed 10 dollars (53 f.). See New Statutes of the State of New York, Part 4, Chap. 3, Tit. 2 Art. 2 § 62. —At Philadelphia, the superintendent can give to freed criminals 4 dollars (21 f. 20 c.) — (art. 8 of the rules). See Report of 1831. —At Boston, he is authorized to give them 5 dollars, that is to say 26 f. 50 c., and also he must provide to each free prisoner a decent suite of clothes that equals, it is said, a sum of 20 dollars (106 f.). The inspectors of the Massachusetts prison appear to regret that they give so much to the prisoners leaving annually. See their Report of 1830, pag. 4. — For Wethersfield see Report on the Prison of Connecticut of 1828.
- 41.
In general, the most dangerous moment for the freed convict is when they leave the prison. It is not unusual that their entire pécule is spent in the twenty-four hours that follow their release. At Geneva, to remedy this evil, it is common to not give the convicts their pécule at the time of their leaving the prison. They make them wait a little longer until they return to the site of their new residence. For some time, they did the same in France for the convict who leaves the bagnes and the maisons centrales. It is a wise measure that is important to keep.
- 42.
See report on the Maryland penitentiary of 23 December 1828, addressed to Governor Kent. And report — Id. — of 1830.
- 43.
The difficulty is two-fold:
-
1.
It is generally thought that women are resigned with more difficulty than men to complete silence;
-
2.
There is a lack, in order to compel them, of a coercive means that is used to tame men. The laws of the United States, which authorize the punishment of the whip to punish male inmates, forbid the infliction of this disciplinary punishment for women.
-
1.
- 44.
See Statistical Observations, [Appendix] No.17 § 4-Proportion of crimes committed by males and females.
- 45.
The prisoner would be so inclined to pick up work when it amuses him and exercises his body and to rest idle when he is tired. But we do not allow, and with reason, a similar arrangement; it is necessary that he work all the time or not at all. If he refuses to work consistently, he is placed in a dark dungeon. He has then to choose between continual idleness in the dark and uninterrupted labor in his cell. His choice is never long to come and he always prefers labor. See Report on Philadelphia 1831.
- 46.
We have no register of disciplinary punishments. We have been told that at Singsing there are approximately five or six per day (among 1,000 prisoners). At Auburn, the punishments that in the beginning were very frequent are very rare today. One of the inspectors of this prison told us: “I remember having seen, in the beginning, nineteen prisoners whipped in less than an hour. Since the discipline is well established, I continued once four and a half months without giving a single lash.” (See black handwritten inquiry on the Auburn discipline).
- 47.
See our conversation with Mr. Elam Lynds at the end of the volume.
- 48.
*No alphabetical note (w).
- 49.
We will mention here a remarkable fact that proves the efficacy of this discipline. On 23 October 1828, a fire burst out in the Auburn prison; it consumed a part of the buildings belonging to the prison. As it became dangerous even to the lives of the inmates, the latter were let out of their cells; but the order was not troubled a single instant among the prisoners; all were occupied with diligence in putting out the fire and not a single one attempted to profit from this circumstance in order to escape. (See report of 1829 from the Auburn inspectors).
- 50.
At Boston , the regulations are also written and traces of the employees’ duties are found there. However, these provisions are only indicative: the superintendent and the under-warden do not enjoy less discretionary power. Regulation of the New Prison, pag. 100.
- 51.
See reports from the inspectors of Auburn, 26 January 1825.
- 52.
Report of Gershom Powers, page. 11. 1827.
- 53.
“The question to resolve,” Mr. Livingston says, “is that of how to know if the whip is the most efficacious means to inculcate in the souls of the convicts religious and moral sentiments, the love of labor and science; and whether a man will love labor better because he has been coerced, by blows or by the terror of receiving them, to do the tasks each day that have been imposed on him.” See letter from Livingston to Roberts Vaux, pag. 11, 1828. —Mr. Gershom Powers , director of Auburn, the discipline of which Mr. Livingston thus attacked, responded: “It is announced that at Philadelphia blows will not be tolerated in any case, and that the reduction of food will be the principal means, if not the only means, of maintaining discipline; in other terms, that by humane motives, to which the inmates are submitted, one will make them die by starvation.” See report of 1828, pag. 97. Mr. Elam Lynds, with whom we have had numerous conversations on this subject, often told us that during the time when the inmates of Auburn were confined day and night in their cells without work a great number of them had passed half their time at the hospital.
- 54.
See Fifth Report of the Boston Society of Prisons, pag. 92.
- 55.
See Statistical Observations, [Appendix] no. 17. At Auburn, the inmates are treated more severely; at Philadelphia , they are more unhappy. At Auburn, where they are whipped, they die less than at Philadelphia, where by humanity one is put in a solitary and gloomy dungeon. —The superintendent of the Walnut Street prison, where the disciplinary punishments are mild, told us before the visit that we made there that it is necessary to punish the prisoners without ceasing for their infractions to the discipline. Thus, the disciplinary punishments of Walnut-Street, softer than those of Auburn, are all the more repeated and more destructive to the life of the prisoner than the severe punishments used in this latter prison.
- 56.
See Statistical tables of the States of New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Maryland and Massachusetts, at the end of this volume, [Appendix] no. 17.
- 57.
See Reports on the penitentiary of Philadelphia by the inspectors, 1831, and Observations of Mr. Bache, doctor of the prison.
- 58.
*The first use of the word “despotism.”
References
1830. Fifth Annual Report of the Board of Managers of the Prison Discipline Society. Boston: Perkins and Marvin.
1831. Annual Report of the Board of Inspectors of the Eastern Penitentiary of Pennsylvania, to the Legislature. Harrisburg: Henry Walsh.
Beaumont, Gustave de and Alexis de Tocqueville. 1833. On the Penitentiary System in the United States and Its Application in France, with an Appendix on Penal Colonies and also Statistical Notes. Translated by Francis Lieber. Philadelphia: Carey, Lea & Blanchard.
Julius, N. 1831. Leçons sur les Prisons. Translated by H. Lagarmitte and M. Mittermayer. Paris: F. G. Levrault.
Livingston, Edward. 1827. Introductory Report to the Code of Prison Discipline: Explanatory of the Principles on which the Code is Founded, Being Part of the System of Penal Law Prepared for the State of Louisiana. London: John Miller.
———. 1828. Letter from Edward Livingston, Esq. to Roberts Vaux: On the Advantages of the Pennsylvania System of Prison Siscipline, For the Application of Which the New Penitentiary Has Been Constructed Near Philadelphia, Etc.. Philadelphia: Jesper Harding.
Powers, Gershom. 1828. Report of Gershom Powers, Agent and Keeper of the State Prison at Auburn, Made to the Legislature, January 7, 1828. Albany: Croswell and Van Benthuysen.
Tocqueville, Alexis de. 2000. Democracy in America. Translated and edited by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Vaux, Roberts. 1827. Letter on the Penitentiary System of Pennsylvania Addressed to William Roscoe. Philadelphia: Jesper Harding.
Williams, Edwin. 1831. The New York Annual Register For the Year of Our Lord. New York: Jonathan Leavitt and Collins & Hannay.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 © Translation by Emily Katherine Ferkaluk
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
de Beaumont, G., de Tocqueville, A. (2018). Chapter 2. In: On the Penitentiary System in the United States and its Application to France. Recovering Political Philosophy. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70799-0_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70799-0_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-70798-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-70799-0
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)