PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O.885
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—–NOT TO
3 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
30
ment appears pertinent to the question or needful in the case, would affect rather the details and the extent of applicability of the projected change than the principle of it. If twice and thrice convicted prisoners do not on the present system pass their after-lives mainly in prison, how is it with the four times and the five times, or the ten times and twelve times convicted? These, judging by the commitments of which we have the requisite returns, are no insignificant proportion of the whole. In 1866-67, when the proportion of recommitments to the total of commitments was 385 per cent., the number of those once, twice, and thrice recommitted was 32,481, and the number of those more than thrice recommitted was 13,934; and it is worthy of note that the numbers of those recommitted more than ten times nearly equalled the numbers of those committed thrice; the one being 3,927, and the other 4,792. If there are those who think the thrice committed (supposing them to be also thrice convicted) are likely to enjoy a larger portion of their after-lives out of prison than it would be right to deprive them of by a life-long protective imprisonment, would they be of the same opinion in regard to the more than ten times committed (supposing convictions to follow)? If not, the question is one of detail and extent of applicability, and not of principle.
And again, if an absolutely life-long imprison- ment (even though but a small portion is to be penal and the rest protective) is more than they
31
can consent to, would they object to such a duration of protective imprisonment (following
the penal) as may be shown not to exceed the average duration of penal imprisonment under- gone in their after-lives by thrice convicted or that undergone by ten times convicted criminals?
If not, though their objection would touch the principle nearly (for the principle would condemin liberation even at a far distant time, as bringing surely, however late, renewed sufferings to the criminal and additional victims of crime), still an important quantum of the benefit arrived at by
the principle would be practically effected.
But there is yet another escape from the objection by variation of the detail. The term
of protective imprisonment to be last reached (according to the design) admits of occasional leaves of absence. If we are compelled to assume that liberty in the far distance is indispensable to take the sting out of life in a prison, why are we to assume further that the liberty is to be con- tinuous and unbroken? And if this be not assumed, the leaves of absence might be repeatedl in such number and measure as the first assump- tion would dictate. The only necessary limita- tion of the leaves under the conditions I
propose would be found in the requirement of such an amount of extra industry as would provide means of honest subsistence for the time for which the leave is to be granted. Will it be said that the demand for such extra industry is impossible to he met, and that the condition defeats the hoon?
Reference :-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICcT..