Abstract
Tocqueville and Beaumont show how France can successfully establish the American penitentiary system by overcoming three obstacles. First, the French can economize financial costs in building new prisons that accommodate solitary cells by avoiding architectural ornaments. Second, the French must overcome obstacles in mores: public opinion does not support the use of corporal punishment and cannot provide same kind of religious support to the moral system of the penitentiary. Finally, the French can reform their laws, which include infamous punishments, a variety of the modes of imprisonment (contrary to the simplicity of the American penitentiary, which exists without classification systems), and administrative centralization. Although the American penitentiary system will not have the same effects in France, it will be profitable when paired with agricultural colonies.
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.
The prisons have for a long time deserved most of the reproaches addressed to their material discipline: it is thus with reason that the abuse and defects infecting the prisons were attacked; we are consequently very far from blaming the efforts of those who have managed to correct the evil; except alongside wise and measured philanthropy are found those whose zeal exceeds the goal; there are in France some prisons that one can no doubt desire to change respecting their cleanliness; but it can be said in general that in our prisons the prisoners are clothed and nourished as well as they must be; any amelioration on this point would effect a contrary abuse that would not be less deplorable than the defect it was intended to remedy. The task of those who justly call for better clothes and better bread for the prisoners seems at an end; however, the work of men who believe that there is a psychological [or: moral] part that must not be neglected in the discipline of a prison must begin.
- 2.
*The division and classification of forms of thought, particularly into groups of three, is a peculiarly Tocquevillian trait in Democracy in America.
- 3.
See Du système pénal et répressif. Mr. Lucas has seen the whole penal legislation in the penitentiary system. He said: “It is not just a matter of reforming the wicked; once this reformation is effected, the criminal must return to society.” There are some true things in this system; but it is incomplete. The first object of punishment is not to reform the convict, but rather to give society a useful and moral example: this is obtained by inflicting on the guilty a punishment commensurate to his crime. Every punishment that is not in harmony with the offence shocks public equity, and is immoral whether from its severity or by its indulgence. But it is also important for society that those who are punished as an example are corrected in prison : here is the second object of punishment, less serious than the first, because its consequences are less extensive. The system of Mr. Charles Lucas is defective in that it considers only the second point and entirely neglects the first. He always puts punishments as a means of reformation for the guilty and not as a means of example for society. It is for this reason that he wishes that liberty be restored to the criminal as soon as there is a presumption of his regeneration. Seeing in imprisonment only a time of trial, during which the convict shows himself relatively quick in repentance and correction, he makes the duration of the sentence depend on conduct in prison. However, conduct in prison proves absolutely nothing; we have since recognized that it is an indication more contrary than favorable (See Chapter II, Section II, §7). Besides, who will judge the conversion of convicts? We can judge a fact: but who will descend into the conscience of the prisoner in order to see his repentance? —And where is the reparation due to society? And how to prove to society that the criminal has become an honest man and that this change is worth expiation?
- 4.
The prison of the Rue de la Roquette near Père-Lachaise.
- 5.
See our conversation with Mr. Elam Lynds , end of the volume.
- 6.
While establishing a single and similar discipline of detention for all convicts, we can conceive very well that there would be, according to the gravity of the punishments assessed by their title or by their duration, some differences in the discipline : thus, prisoners for police offences might be accorded a more considerable pécule than that accorded to the criminals stricken by a more severe punishment, etc., etc. If we ask for a uniform discipline , we only wish to reclaim the application of the fundamental principles of the penitentiary system, isolation at night and silence during the day, and we assert that once these two principles are allowed, the variety of houses of detention becomes useless.
- 7.
See Laws of 22 July, 29 September, and 6 October 1791.
- 8.
Article 16 of the law of 6 October 1791 reads: “Every person sentenced to confinement alone in an enlightened place, without chains or attachments; cannot have for the duration of his punishment any communication with the other convicts, or with outside persons.” Here is exactly the theory of solitary imprisonment: it is the system of Cherry Hill (Philadelphia).
- 9.
See: Circular of the Minister of the Interior of 22 March 1816; ordinance of 9 April 1819.
- 10.
“It must not be concealed, that one great reason why crimes are so infrequent is the full employment the whole country offers to those who are willing to labor, while at the same time the ordinary rate of wages for a healthy man is sufficient to support him and a family. This is a point which you will not lose sight of in comparing the institutions of America with those of Europe.” (Letter of the Attorney General of the State of Maryland, 30 January 1832). *Note: Since the paragraph is originally included in English in the French edition, we simply translate the French citation.
- 11.
See: Note on Agricultural Colonies, Appendix no. 4.
- 12.
*Lieber translates: “the industry of citizens” (Beaumont and Tocqueville 1833, p. 104).
- 13.
See alphabetical note s.
- 14.
See alphabetical note mm.
- 15.
*The longest sentence in the book.
- 16.
See Appendix on Penal Colonies, no. 2
References
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.
Lucas, Charles. 1827. Du système pénal et du système répressif en général, de la peine de mort en particulier. Paris: Charles-Béchet.
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_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70799-0_6
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)