People's Pilot, Volume 4, Number 39, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 16 March 1895 — A DUTY OF SOCIETY. [ARTICLE]

A DUTY OF SOCIETY.

CFUMEB AQAJNSTTHE FAMILIES OF CRIMINALS. VaAttlMU Condltloaa —Tk* Innnrrnt Suffer Greater Pnnlnhmcnt Thun the Guilty—Argument for the Reform of Legalized Abuses.

There are many wrongs committed in the name of justice. Among these none are greater than those committed against the families of criminals. Take for instance a man with a family of five or six children. He commits some ! act for which he is sent to prison for * a length of time. No attention is given to his family. They do not seem to be subjects for consideration at all. The husband is probably very poor and when he leaves his family he takes from them the last vestige of support. The wife in her heart-broken condition must now accommodate herself to her new surroundings and take upon tierself the task of supporting herself and her children. As a result, and one far too common, the children grow up hi want and aa a rule follow the example set by the unfortunate father. In many cases the real sufferers are the wife and children. This unfortunate condition is augmented greatly by the fact that the family feels too keenly the remorse and disgrace brought upon them by the acta of their father, and, being thus handicapped, they fall an easy prey to the vices that, under more favorable surroundings, they would have resisted.

Aside, however, from the pathetic side comes the fact that it is contrary to the principle of justice. By what authority or under what pretext can we make one person responsible for the acta of another. This wife and these children have violated no law, then why should they suffer Its consequences? It is true that the mortification that the Imprisoning of the father and husband entails is unavoidable, but there 1b no need of the laws of the country putting more upon these unfortunates than ia absolutely unavoidable. In nearly all the States the prisoner is put to hard labor. The proceeds of hia labor, in nearly all cases, go to the State. In some cases is worse than that, it goes into the pocket of some contractor. In that case the State not only robs the widow and orphans of what he produces but also turns it over to the contractor. Now we would like to ask if it would not be better that the proceeds of the convict’s labor be turned back to his family? Can the State afford to make criminals out of his children through starvation for the sake of keeping his wages? It is argued by some that most criminals are a burden rather than a support to their families, while free. That may be true, and in many cases doubtless is true, but that argues nothing against what we are demanding. If a man is worthless and has a family and he is sent to prison and made to work, the State is enabled to serve a double purpose, of ridding society of a bad citizen and making him support his family, a thing he would not otherwise do. For the State to ruin a whole family and then be a party to the raising up of a lot of criminals all for the sake of meteing out the demands of justice to one man, is not only wrong in principle, but destructive in practice. It is argued, again, that many of the criminals in our penitentiaries are single men. This is true, but the most of them have mothers and fathers who are, or at least should, depend upon him for support. Granting, however, that he has no family or other persons depending upon him. Why not allow him to retain a good portion of his earnings for his own use after his term expires? The custom in most States is to give the discharged convict a ticket home, $5 in money and a new suit of clothes. These clothes are of the very cheapest kind, bought in large quantities and all alike. Every discharged criminal leaves the prison looking just like every other prisoner who has left it. These suits are almost as well known throughout the country as would be a suit of stripes. He has no way of concealing his identity or his late occupation. He has no money to go where' he is not known The result is his surroundings have a tendency to discourage him in making another start in life, and his good resolutions, made in captivity, come to naught. It is not unfrequently the case that these conditions are too much for him and in the absence of better opening he seeks refuge again in the penitentiary. Any one who has watched these matters can call to mind cases of this kind Now we believe that prisons of all kinds should be maintained only for the good of society. That the first an? greatest object to be attained is the restoration of the criminal himself Makes a man of him, if possible, and at all events do nothing to hold him down or to stand in the way of his progress along the line of selfrreform. It may appear, at first glance, to be a sweeping remark to make, but we believe that the facts warrant us in saying that under our present abominable system that prisons, as a whole, are doing more harm than good.—lnter Mountain (Utah) Advocate.