Abstract
Part III begins the authors’ brief analysis of houses of refuge as ancillary institutions to American penitentiaries. Tocqueville and Beaumont argue that houses of refuge are successful because they are founded by private, wealthy individuals and given State support. The institutions contain both juvenile delinquents and impoverished children sent there as a precautionary measure; they operate as both school and prison. Tocqueville and Beaumont also describe the daily life of children in houses of refuge, including the system of punishments and rewards used for discipline and the conditions of a child’s leaving the house. The authors compare the discipline of houses of refuge at Boston, New York, and Philadelphia. Finally, the authors answer the question of whether houses of refuge truly reform children.
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.
We found, when visiting the House of Refuge of New York, that more than half the children who have been received there until this day are there because of evils that would have been imputed to them. Thus, out of five hundred thirteen children, one hundred thirty-five lost their father, forty their mother, sixty-seven were orphans, fifty-one had been pushed into crime by notorious misconduct or lack of care by their parents; there are forty-seven whose mother had remarried.
- 2.
The various authorities who can send children to the house of refuge are:
-
1.
The courts of criminal justice;
-
2.
Police officers;
-
3.
Commissioners of the hospital of the poor (Almshouse).
See §17 of title 7 (chapter 1) 4th part of the revised statutes of the State of New York: “Whenever any person under the age of sixteen will be convicted of a felony, the Court, instead of sentencing to imprisonment in a state prison, can order his detention in the House of Refuge established in the city of New York by the society instituted for the reformation of juvenile delinquents, unless the court has been informed by the so-called society that the House of Refuge has no available space.”
-
1.
- 3.
*Lieber inserts a footnote: “This seems a mistake. Children cannot be sent there who have not committed a crime: for poor children, who have none to take care of them, and become a charge on the public, and consequently vagrants, are considered, technically, criminal: vagrancy is a crime, though the result often of misfortune. The constitutional doubt was, as to the legality of confining children, merely charged with a crime, and not convicted of it” (Beaumont and Tocqueville 1833, p. 113).
- 4.
See Regulation of the Boston House of Refuge, by Mr. Welles [Appendix No. 13, bis].
- 5.
See Various Regulations of the Houses of Refuge in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia.
- 6.
We see that in the United States there is nothing that resembles what is practiced among us. In the Madelonettes prison, consecrated for young prisoners at Paris, the discipline is entirely invaded by the contractor. He considers each child as his personal property; and if one intends to give instruction to the young prisoners, the contractor does not permit it. “We waste,” he says, “the time that is mine.” He cares only for his material interest; that of the children does not touch him. Thus, he thinks only to draw the most money possible from their labor. Since a trade takes a long time to learn, he rarely takes the trouble to teach the children; he prefers occupying them with certain manual labors that necessitate neither skill nor cleverness, such as cardboard packaging, fastening, etc., etc. These labors, productive for him, are in no way useful for the children, who in leaving the house will have no profession to exercise. *Note: “Adresse” and “habileté,” as they are used in this sentence, really mean the same thing: “skill.” “Habile” generally means “clever,” indicating the activity of intelligence. The use of two interchangeable words emphasizes the attribute of work that should be a priority in reforming individuals: the intelligent use and development of skill, rather than simply physical or habitual labor.
- 7.
See the translation that we give of this regulation at the end of the volume.
- 8.
See Conversation with the Director of the House of Refuge of Philadelphia, [Appendix] No. 15.
- 9.
Any information that was necessary for us to make this verification has been put at our disposal with an extreme alacrity, and as we found ourselves thus in possession of original documents we have been able to form for ourselves a precise opinion of the conduct of all the children after their time in the refuge. Our examination focused on all children admitted into the refuge from 1 January 1825 until 1 January 1829. Since this latter year, many subjects have been received into the House of Refuge of New York and several have left; but those who passed into society have had very little time, so that their conduct proves nothing in their favor; to be decisive, the proof must be longer.
Reference
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.
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 1. 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_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70799-0_7
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)