Virginia Argus — Richmond, Va., 1810-01-23 00:00:00, page 1

\ * * %
VIRGINIA ARGUS. ~
‘ AV 1! T *1 TEAR.] A F REE PRESJ M AIN'T AIMS THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE. [No. 1725]
' RIC£l*fOYD .*r— Prim peg (ov T'JS30AYs ivj Fridays,i »7 S \,\1 J’EL PLE \SA. M 1*5, Junior, Printer to me lo .1 *0*1 % £ vlth.
> __ .________ _|_ J
:v Per in vi .1 —Pti l i t. AAo.i'ice.] T U E S D A T, J A A' U A R T 23, l&lo. [12 1-2 Cent* Si'ig-'e,'}
---f-—-- 1 1
THE Committee appointed to take into consideration the state of tins Pe
nitentiary, beg leave to submit the following
! ' REPORT.
IT i* useless £or your committee to go at large into the benefits of the Penitentiary system. This theme has be«uft
90 often lunched, and so deeply explored, that the arguments in us favor have nearly assumed the certainty of matlt£S|
nifttical truth.*.—VVc have only to ask, whether the punishments which are severe, can be so effectual in the prevfegM
ltio* of crimes, because they are not executed ; whether it is not better that punishments be sure rgtUa^pj^
mgrtfc; in what way they car. be *ure, if they arc not proportioned to crimes, and whether this institution is hCttjrtiw
upon the plan of apportionment; and whether there are net only more crimes prevented and more criminals sityt'JUEj'
it; but whether oi those who are saved, the majority are not given back into the bosom of society with commendable
habits of order and industry ? These are the great points on which the benefits of this wise and benevolent tiUutu
tiou will be found to rest.—But this system tliu3 excellent in itself, may be in a certain degree defective under its
|yfes-TU organization in this state. It is with that profound deference which is due to the subject, that your commit
Tee beg leave to point out such defects as seem to them to attach to the institution in its present shape.
The first thing that we beg leave to mention as an imperfection, is the distinction drawn by the law between mur
i.i the fat and 2d degree. This we cannot but regard, with the chief magistrate of this commonwealth, as ab
surd in the extreme*” It is a distinction utterly unknown to the common or statute laws of England, it is a feature
exdhs.'Vety copied from the Penitentiary law of Pennsylvania. • It is unknown to the Penitentiary law of New York,
borrowed, like our own, from th ;t of Pennsylvania. It is one which the ingenious father of thi». system in Virginia,
himself, repents ever to have recognized. It is one not only eminently “ absurd,” but pernicious, and liable to ex
treat.; abuse. Whit is the cause oi that number of convicts v.*ho are now imprisoned in the Penitentiary for murder
of the second degree ? What do*** the daily experience of o :r courts of justice exhibit to us ? What is mo e com
livm than for juries, ini.d-u by the pathos of the orator, or the situation of the criminal, to consult tne suggestions ol
mercy, hr softening down the hues ol the most atrocious murders? Executions for murder are growing as tare in this
’ , state as they are in Pennsylvania, where they are a sort of public spectacle, the very novelty of which attracts crowds
of spectators far and near. The wholesome terrors of the law. seem to be losing their restraints, and the Jdood ol
the in r.vent is beginning to fmw from a misplaced economy of the blood of the guilty. These verdicts too, arc
stmethiics rendered in opposition to the dictates of common sense.— For what shall we say of the commitment of a
letn.tlc from Norfolk, who was found guilty of murder of the second degree, under an indictment for the murUer of
her own child, when it is plain to every one, that if she had unfortunately killed it without premeditation or malice,
f *ie ought to have been cleared; but if she had stifled the child of her own womb, that she would have deserved to
have ranked among the most atrocious of murderers ? But where is the remedy ? Let us return, we say,-to the old and
the only distinctions recognized by reason and justice. “ Manslaughter,11 says our excellent chief magistrate, fc* is
the true distinction.” Let us adopt those species of crimes which are recognized by the English law, but without
their Unodv and indiscriminate punishments. For murder, let there he reouisite “ malice aforethought either p».
)Tensed or implied.” In cases where there is 44 voluntary Aiding, with 4k sudden heat,'7 or “ involuntary, but in the
commission of so.unlawful act ?y let there be the different grades of manslaughter. The other modes of killing,
will ;.tss off into the various shades of homicide, excusable or justifiable, according to the shade of atrocity, which td
Sifts may respectively assume.—Yet there is another point On which your committee cannot concur with the comm.iid
,« uion of the Governor to the General Assembly. Thu Governor supposes that the 44 punishment,*’ and of course
i;ie period of confinement ought to lie 44fixed to every crime, according to tile degree of its atrocity.” But th
question is, how are' these different degrees of atrocity to be fixed? The shades a^e so numerous and nice, as to de
fy the power of definition. The mere attempt to do it, as to any particular crime, w^uld probably expand into vo
Joioi P. The shades of atrocity arc as various as the different cases ; and cases would eternally vary with the situation,
tnc age, conduct, character, disposition and the motives of criminals.
On the other hand, to fix the punishment to the crime, without regard to those degrees of atrocity, would be an
utter confusion of all the varieties of guilt. l'he law would indeed be, what it has so often been called, the bed of
Procrustes, if too long, the unhappy criminal would be lopt; if too short, he would be stretched to she precise stand
ard of legal torture. No plea of circumstance or necessity would be received in mitigation of his lute. His educa
tion, age, character, past conduct and present situation are to be tot lly overlooked, and every thing is to be narrow
ed down to this simple question : Did he or she do this deed 7 To shew that these distinctions ought not to be lost
sight of, we beg leave to cite the following pathetic case from the records of Tyburn ; ** During the wise dispute a
bout Falkland's island, a workman in London was returning one day to h:s family with his weekly wages. He was
apprehended by a press-gang and carried into the hold of a tender, rlis landlord and some othe» creditors heard of
what they called his elopement. They seized on his furniture, and his wife and child were turned to the door. With
in a few days after the mother was delivered of a second child, in a garret. When weakness permitted her to rise,
she left two r.akrd children and wandered into the streets as a common beggar. Instead of obtaining assistance, she
was reproached as an abandoned vagabond. In despair, she went into a shop and attempted to carry off a small piece
of linen. She was seized, tried and condemned to he hanged. In her defence the woman said, that she had lived
respectably and happy till a press-gang robbed her of her husband, and in him, of all means to support herself and
h-r family, and that in attempting to clothe her new born infant, she perhaps did wrong, as she did not at that time
know what she did. The parish officers and other witnesses bore testimony to the truth of her averment, but all to
no purpose ; she was ordered for Tyburn. Though her milk, if she had any. must have been fermented into poison
it seems that nobody condescended r, seek a nurse for her child. The hangman dragged her sucking infant from
her breast, when he straitened the cord about her neck.”—Thus far the historian. And now will you permit us to ask
whether there is a man breathing who would h ive meted out to this poor female, to this wretched victim of English
institutions, the same severity of punishment as to him who should have unnecessarily and wantonly committed th
like larceny of a piece of linen? This single case speaks louder than a thousand arguments to enforce the necessit,
of discrimination in crimes and punishments.
Since then it is impossible to fix the different shades of atrocity, and inhuman to lose sight of them, what other re
source is left but to fix a certain range of punishments for each offence, beyond which nei.ner the tenderness nor the
rigor of juries shall be permitted to oscillate ; to have a maximum and a minimum, for the highest and the lowest oL
jentes, uciwct* cxwcmcs il is mi me uistrcuuu oi a jury io aujusc tne punisnments:—i nis range is probabl'
too large, under the present law, as to most offences.
Your committee beg leave to point oat another defect in the penitentiary acts: By the original act of 1796, it was
provided that 44 every other felony, misdemeanor or offen .e whatever, not provided for by that act, was to be pu
nished as heretofore.’* This provision is obviously at variance with the other parts of the act, and the omission was
afterwards cured by the amendatory act of 1800. This provides that all such cases, as were not provided for by the
act of ’90, “ the punishment whereof bv the laws .hen in force,’ miy amount to death without the benefit of clergy,”
f should undergo a confinement in the jail and penitentiary house for a period not less than o/ir, nor more than ten years
This amendatory act itself is liable to strong objections : 1st the range of punishments for a numerous class of offences
is too large.— There arc few crimes indeed, if there be any, whose shades of atrocity are so great as to admit of as
wide u range as from one to ten years. In the 2d place, h ive we not thus adopted anew, and in the lump, most of
those heterogeneous crimes which arc recognized by the common law of England ? Our act of assembly of Decembei
22, 1792, has indeed superceded the whole code of English statute laws ; but still such offences as are recognized by
the common larv, and not provided for by our own statutes were in f >rce previous to the penitentiary act. What then
are we to think of the provisions of that law which recognizes again all such offences as are created by the English
common law ; most of which have sprung from a system of political institutions, very different, if not abhorrent from
our own ; and what is still more deplorable, subjects this numerous class of unprovided crimes, witha.i their various
hues of atrocity, to the same grades and range of punishments ?
Humanity weeps over such an oversight. The genius of the republic blushes for such a defect. Why not have r
code of our ^wn ? Why not altogether dispense with the great body of the criminal jurisprudence of England ? Why
not have statutes of our own to sketch out our own lists of crimes, as wo have already done of punishments? The peni
trntiary law of New-York has done it. In that state almost every sort of crime is put on the list.—But whilst we ap
prove of this course, we would hv no means be thought to approve of those excessive str-tches of punishment which
are nude by the law of New-York : Laws which subject so many offences, even that of burning a barn, to on impri
so aunt {or life—-laws by which, in the year 1801, as many a3 77 out of 34>5 convicts, were actually doomed to thii
never-ending punishment.
But there seems another oversight in th • law, which your committee beg leave to notice. By the 24th section o
the act of *96, if any one who had previously been convicted of a crime, which was then “capital, or a felony of death
without benefit of clergy,” was to 44 commit any such offence a second time, and he thereof legally convicted,” such
per'Ci was to be doomed to imprisonment for life\ whereas if he had been 4> sentenced to hard labour and solitary
confinement by virtue of that act, and bad escaped or been pardonedf And after r.urh escape or pardon, was found
F idly of any su<?b offence as was then capital, or a ft-lony of death without benefit of clergy ; such person was to be
doonvvl to* an imprisonment for 25 years. This very act, however, subjects most of those crimes to 44 hard labour
and vditarv <\>u figment,” which were at that ti ue “capital, or a felony of death without benefit of clergy.” So that in
Jr m mv cases but convertible terms. Hmv then stands the rase? if*- who bos wrought through the period of
bis first confi.vtyu-nt, is doomed uv a second offence to an imprisonment for life; whilst he who has broken his prison,
or enjoyed the pardon of the executive, is sentenced for 21 vears for ilv verv same offences. 'The very circumstances
r>f which shou d have aggravated the guilt of the offender; his ferubie escape from prisoayor his tings alcful disregard of
executive mercy ; have only served to place h i an upon better ground. '1 he
only excuse which can be given for such a strange contradiction is, that this
section of our own law was taken, marly verbatim, lvoin tnat ol Pennsylva
nia. but the law of Pennsylvania itscll was caa ged m this respect toi the
worse; for the original law had stretched its just and indignant severity nvcf
the miserable wretch who hau proved his turbulence or ingratitude.
Tlvis matter assumes greater importance iron. ».he very excellent rule now
adopted by the executive, ol reuniting to certain persons a very small period * .
jllfPtheir imprisonment. The paper which extendi* ibi* inuulgence is, to all
jiiiicnts and purposes a pardon. it is attesed by the seal of the state, and the
^ign oianuei ol the governor. Either then this rule cannot in: exi rms
■lar as it may be proper, or those wno experienced the indulgence, should not
be placed on a better looting than such as have passed tnrough the u.i.ie
sentence of the law. That such remissions are in some cases proper, n is u
most impossible to doubt. They stimulate the convict; they encourage him
in the observance ofa correct deportment. They keep down ih-t spring ol i .
subordination and revolt, of open riots and secret pi. is, which all such ip i
tu: ions contain within them. And it deserves to be note.'., that no attc t
has been made to escape, but in the case of one individual, -.nice t. -«b .1 c
was regularly carried into clfcct. The mind of the prisoner is thus keot .1 a
proper tone for improvement. The man is more at ease with, hir.sstlf. id &
tranquility is undisturbed by any paroxys s »f turbulent revolt. ilV* has
time to think of reformation ; and the curt ol his disease is s.lcutly going; on. «
On the otner’hand your committee think proper to observe, that vejy iev
mischitIs are likely to spring from these remissions ; tna-. they are seldom,
cr never grant*, cl, but at the suggestion of the Hoard v»i Visitors, who are cau
tious enough lo reserve their recommendations loi extraordinary occasions,
and tor cases -where the remaining term of imprisonment is \erv short.
From these general views o., the penitentiary system, y our committee -■
leave to pass on to a consideration oi the state*.! the penitentiary dur...g
the preseutyear:
During this year there have been fewer convicts received than in the six:
preceding years, except the last, as p^ars lmm the following list ser p
dve of the numbers received dui mg each successive year, since uic cumr
iHCnr.ffmfnt nt’ fhn 'muiin.tini.
Sprii.g Term Fall Term
1800 Prisoners 6 . . . 15 • 21
1801 . 19 ... 14 . 30
1802 . . 17 k . 21 * 38
1803 * 33 ... 22 . 55
18'4 . 30 ... 11 . 41
IS >5 24 . . i 26 50
1806 . . 28 ... 13 . 41
1807 • 31 ... 23 . 54
1808 . . 18 ... 18 . 36
1809 . . . .... . 41
Received since the commencement of the institution, <*10
■ — p
The annexed table (A.) shews in detail the number of convicts received
from each district ; their places of nativity ; their periods «•! connnrmtm,a nl
the nature oi their erwm s.—It appears from, tne following list, in it ti.o a
who have been discharged from the institution, during theysar, aide wet cy
one, than those who have been received:
dumber ol prisoners discharged at the expiration of their respec*
live terms of imprisonment 33
Pardoned by the Governor and Council .... 8
>y the President of the United btaus .... 1
lota! 42
At the expiration of the last year, there were 119 prisoners within the
wails of the penitentiary ; at present 122 ; the increase of course i thre^ ;
of these there are now 11 in, lor second uifenct s. The following list ehews us
in what waif these beings are emplo vd,or in other woids, the specie* ©* occu
pations which are now carried ou iu this institution t
21 Shoe mak< rs
4 Boot Makers
3 Binders
2 Cutters
2 Harness makers
31 Wrought nailors
10 Headers of nails
8 Cotters of nails and brads
6 Blacksmiths and strikers *
2 Grinders
2 Coopers
2 Carpenters
w n.99i3iaiii3 iu niiivu im
4 Spinners—these arc all the women in the Penitentiary.
2 lailors
5 Weavers
2 Attendants on weavers
1 Washer
1 Beating hemp
1 Dish washer
2 Cooks
6 at miscellaneous work
122 Total
The pecuniary rcsourcet of the institution arc in good condition ; the pro
fits of the present year are not so great as those ol the last. The follow
ing presents at one glance, the amount of each article mu >ufa lured, lions
1st December 1808, tct30th November 1809, vi/- :
Amount of wrought nails .... £ 10,669 23 1-2
Do. of cut brads . . . , 17,3; 8 51
Do. of blacksmithing, carpentering, &c. 1,253 72 1-2
Do. of tailoring, tinning, &c. . . . . 4'.8 54 '2 2
Do. of ho’stering, cartridge boxes, &c. . 4,519 311-2
Do. of cordwaining. 11,459 89 1-2
Do. of weaving, spinning cotton, twine, &c. . l,23o 78
i ’ '
£'£•5.926 03 1- 2
The gross profits of which are about- . 9,121 C4 1-2
From which deducting the commissions of the su
pi-rir.tendant and turnkeys, 8ic. be. the clear nett
projit of the whole is, as near as it cAn Ixgehti
mated, about.5292 37
It seems that there have been fewer articles manufacturedIdurr >g this than
the last year ; and the reasons are, that the pubU work, winch , r- ved
profitable to the institution, lias been almost completed f an^ Ifcwiit h, -he
carding, roving and spinning machine, wer/or’g.naliy’brought to us in so
•mperfei.t a condition, that a good ileal of'wvrk and attendant/ was requisite
to put them into operation. So much labo*/- was th ■ re fore withdrawn from
the manufacture of other articles. This.* mschrncs arc now going hito