emphasized the excellence of the system devised in 1879 for the segregation of the comparatively innocent from convicts hardened in crime. The system of the “star ” class as originally established provided that the prisoner never previously convicted should be kept absolutely apart, at chapel, labour, exercise and in quarters, from his less fortunate fellows who had already been imprisoned. The rule was strictly enforced and with the most conspicuous results, so that little more than 1% of “ stars ” have been re-convicted when once more at large. The privilege of the “ star ” is only accorded after careful inquiry and reasonable proof that the individual has never before been sent to prison. Reference is made to the police at the time of conviction, and the duty of looking into previous and present character is very strictly performed. The inquiry is continuous and may be prolonged into the sentence; then, if necessary, correction is applied. But as a matter of fact very few mistakes are made. It is obvious that wrongful admission into the “ star ” class might be fraught with mischievous consequences, and it is well known that a first sentence does not necessarily mean absolute unacquaintance with crime. For administrative convenience the “stars ”-whose name comes from the scrap of crimson cloth worn on cap and jacket sleeve-have been generally concentrated at Portland, and employed in labours specially allotted to them, for the most part demanding a higher rate of intelligence than the general average shown by convicts. Moulders, blacksmiths, carpenters, tinsmiths, stonemasons, bookbinders, painters and various other trades and handicrafts are the peculiar province of the “ stars.”
The Prison Act of 1898 made some marked changes in penal discipline. One was the strict limitation of corporal punishment to offences of mutiny and gross personal violence to officers, where previously it might be inflicted for many forms of misconduct, and it can only now be adjudged under great restrictions. It was feared that the removal of this powerful deterrent would adversely affect discipline, but on the contrary, the yearly average of prison offences has diminished from 147 to 131 per thousand prisoners, and it has been felt by the authorities that the limitation was salutary and wise. Another change was the power given to courts of law to differentiate between offenders by ordering them one of three classes of treatment ranging from severe to less rigorous. The first of these divisions was akin to that of former first-class misdemeanants; the second division was allotted to persons guilty of trivial offences not amounting to moral depravity, the third division was apportioned to serious crime calling for severe repression, involving strict separation for the first twenty-eight days with “ hard labour ” (now an obsolete expression, since all prison labour is nowadays accounted “ hard ”). The scheme was judicious, but courts have been slow to make use of its provisions. Yet a third improvement was permission conceded to prisoners locked up in default of payment of fine, to obtain a reduction of time proportionate to part payment of the fine. The numbers under both categories are considerable, and taken together show a steady increase in the ten years from 1892 (when the acts first came into effect) to 1902, the figures being 33,802 in 1892 and 51,302 in 1902. Imprisonment, albeit somewhat modified and diluted, continues to be used as the chief penalty and most trusted panacea for all crime. The medicine is so simple in application and so easily available that it is served out almost automatically and indifferently to every law-breaker; the pickpocket and the burglar are locked up next door to the clergyman at variance with his bishop; the weak-kneed and self-indulgent drunkard rubs shoulders with the political zealot who has endangered the peace of nations. There is an enormous mass of so-called crime in England which is not crime at all, and still is perpetually penalized by ar. infliction of imprisonment for such short periods as to be perfectly futile. The bulk of the offences for which it is meted out are trivial and unimportant. Eighty-three per cent of the annual convictions, summarily and on indictment, followed by committal to gaol, are for misconduct that is distinctly non-criminal, such as breaches of municipal by-laws and police regulations, drunkenness, gaming and offences under the 367
vagrancy acts. The leniency of the sentences indicates the comparatively trifling character of the wrongdoing. Forty per cent. of the males and 39% of the females were sent to prison for periods of a week or less; on the other hand, no more than 4% were sentenced to six months and under, only 2 % were imprisoned for terms between six months and one year; and -7 5% to more than one year. The question will arise some day whether it is really necessary to maintain fifty-six local prisons, with all their elaborate paraphernalia, their imposing buildings and expensive staff, to maintain discipline in daily life and insist upon the proper observance of customs and usages, many of them of purely modern invention. Of course there is in most cases the alternative of a fine, the non-payment of which entails the imprisonment; yet a penalty imposed on the pocket is so clearly the proper retribution for such misdeeds that better methods should be devised for the collection of fines. The chief aim of penal legislation should indeed be either to keep gaols empty or to use them only where distinct reduction in the number of offenders, whether by regeneration or by continuous withdrawal from noxious activity, can be obtained. An axiom based upon this view has been formulated, and although paradoxical it may well be quoted here. The great aim and object of all penal processes, it has been said, should be the recognition of the general principle of dividing all offenders into two categories: (1) those who ought never to enter a gaol, and (2) those who ought never to be allowed to leave it. Praiseworthy efforts to compass the first end have been made in recent legislation. The First Offenders Act in 1887 had the effect of postponing sentence and sparing these offenders from incarceration subject to their good conduct. An average of about 4500 thus escaped imprisonment in the five years between 1893 and 1897, and an average of 5500 the five following years. The gain in this was great, seeing that no more than 6 to 8% were actually sent to gaol after the commission of a second offence, and that there was therefore a very distinct saving in expense of maintenance of prisoners incarcerated. The value of this act is to be seen in its wide adoption. It is in force in some of the states of the American Union. It was adopted in France by the Berenger law of 1891, and in Belgium, where 14% of sentences of imprisonment in one year and a-half were postponed. In some countries the concession has been accompanied by admonition. The Summary Jurisdiction Acts, by which large numbers of minor offenders were discharged on bail, or subjected to fines or very brief terms of imprisonment, have also tended to diminish the prison population enormously. The number annually discharged increased from 33,000 in 1893 to 51,302 in 1902. This excellent system has commended itself to many countries and it is now adopted by the bulk of governments and jurisdictions owing allegiance to the British Crown.
Two new systems of applying imprisonment have commended themselves to English administrators, and both have been effected by the Prevention of Crime Act 1908. The first is a new method for educating and reforming young offenders, already on the frontiers of habitual crime, no longer children, but at an age still susceptible of permanent improvement; the second is the legal acceptance of the principle of indefinite detention, the willingness to inflict an indeterminate sentence on those who have already forfeited the right to be at large. Both these measures originated in the United States. The Borstal scheme of a juvenile-adult reformatory has been to some extent planned on the institutions of Elmira reformatory in the state of New York and of Concord in Massachusetts (see JUVENILE OFFENDERS). Side by side with the new processes introduced, the idea of the indeterminate sentence was started and put in practice, by which release was made to depend upon reasonable hope of amendment and sentences were prolonged until it was more or less certain that the treatment had resulted in cure.
Other measures are set forth in the new classification of convicts, prescribed by the secretary of state in the rules submitted by him to the House of Commons in 1904. All convicts
