Reformatory Treatment of Soldiers and Sailors under Sentence of Detention.
By Lieutenant-Colonel G. Haines, British Imperial Service, and Commandant Detention Barracks, Aldershot, England.
I am very willing to write all I know on this subject, but it is impossible to lay down hard and fast rules where every case differs in various degrees from the next.
Our latest revised rules have been placed at your disposal. They are as complete as such things can be. It is in the method of obeying those rules that the real difficulties lie, although they have been compiled with extreme care to meet those difficulties.
Even a drill book is a weary thing without the drill instructor, and he must have the knack of imparting its contents, so that his hearers may understand and remember what they are told.
I fear this fact was made only too apparent in my article entitled, "Punishment as Applied to Soldiers and Sailors," which was so kindly and generously received by your magazine, and I am encouraged, by the reception accorded to my maiden effort, to write anything I can to assist in bringing about reforms which are evidently needed, and to unravel the maze of tangles which beset our path in the first few years of evolution in England.
I must try and imagine that, in addition to being very much with you in the spirit, I am actually "alongside" in the flesh; and that after having greeted the American officers who have visited my establishment, and taken a bird's eye view of our system, I say "Well, gentlemen, its time we make a start"—and I take charge right away.
What have we got that we can do without?
What can we put the pen through as being fundamentally antagonistic to "Reform "?
There are several such, but they all come under one head, viz. Stigma.
- Penal treatment,
- Prison clothing,
- Prison terms, the word
- Prison, and
- All degrading and non-productive employment, and life, or rather "existence," behind locked doors.
I never could see why any sailor or soldier, who has broken the naval or military laws of discipline, should be branded for all time. I am glad to see that the reformation of convicts is not considered hopeless nowadays; and, provided the crime does not come under the head of "cruel and unnatural," and it is not a monstrous or hideously cowardly kind, I think the brand of Cain can be dispensed with.
But there are other good and sufficient reasons why a sailor or a soldier should not be liable to carry the mark of the beast. To put it simply, his family don't like it.
A family (A) which has produced soldiers and sailors, and which merits its country's thanks, may produce one "bad hat." Another family (B) which has not as yet produced any recruits, but fully intends to put their lads into one or other of the services, sees what has happened to (A), and all its boys go into something else.
In reforming A's "bad hat," and keeping him free from stigma, you return him to his family in his right mind, earn the family's gratitude, and you need not fear obstruction in that quarter. Moreover, the stigma of a prison reacts upon the man when he becomes a civilian. It lasts a life time. This is obviously wrong if "it is [really] never too late to mend."
Let us therefore rule out stigma—and find something to replace it.
It is a sticky thing and must be made to adhere only to the man who richly deserves it.
In the first place the automatic process is the most potent aid.
Gratitude for the removal of disgrace is going to help you more than you would at first credit. The men themselves will do more than half, by showing how they appreciate a real boon.
The technical difficulty lies in the business of making the treatment, divested as it is of degradation, deterrent in the highest possible degree. This is a matter of training.
The officers entrusted with this work (they must be commissioned officers) must necessarily be highly trained men. They must carefully train the staff under them. They must make very few, if any, mistakes, and they must know thoroughly well all matters connected with the service to which they and the men under detention belong.
Well-meaning men are so often hustled into trouble by the ignorance and incapability of junior non-commissioned officers.
Their chief faults are:
Inability to wield authority,
Eyewash,
Impatience, and swelled head.
Such men cannot command respect, and they make crime.
When a man comes to the Aldershot Detention Barracks he finds himself under a staff of experts, and he realizes how easy it is to behave well under such circumstances. He knows more about his profession on leaving than the non-commissioned officers described above; and he knows how to avoid running foul of such people.
Some time ago I had a very interesting example of this.
A man arrived with a name for being a desperate character.
I was warned about him by his commanding officer. He had evidently been badly adrift. He was slovenly, idle, and inclined to be insubordinate. After a time I began to notice something about him which interested me. His appearance on parade was improving, his movements were brisker, and his surly look had disappeared. Later he became one of the smartest fellows in the place. His "turn out" was splendid. His shooting was beautiful. He could almost write his name on the target. He looked you squarely in the eye, and his room was a marvel of neatness and cleanliness. Shortly before his release I had a long chat with him.
At last I asked him, "How is it that you can soldier in a place like this, and not with your corps"? He ripped out instantly with the reply, "Well, sir, there ain't no lance corporals here!"
He rejoined his unit, I have not seen him since, so I suppose he is doing well.
"Prison" means "Punishment."
"Detention" means "Reformation."
"Prison" is a sad and sordid place for all concerned with it. It is a very necessary, nay, indispensable institution; but not for men serving for the honor and safety of their fatherland on land and sea.
"Detention" is elevating, progressive, instructive, healthy and reformatory in every way—but,
Is detention deterrent? A fair question. The answer is emphatically Yes.
Statistics amply prove this, and you have them in your possession.
The numbers of committals for years past have steadily diminished, until the absence of crime in the army has become a matter of particular interest in this country.
The reason is that the men have got to know about detention. Those who know it by experience have told their comrades who do not, and the strenuous routine of the " busy day" is looked upon as a thing to avoid. Then again, the officers have got to know the system.
Here in Aldershot, and in all stations where there are detention barracks, every young officer has to attend for instruction, and dozens of the senior ones come voluntarily.
The other day a company officer said to me, when leaving after lecture, "Well, now I don't mind so much if my fellows miss company training by being sent here, I find they lose nothing."
Officers commanding units come as visitors, and they recognize the utility of the place and send men in to have their weaknesses eradicated and their ignorance removed by the careful individual attention which they cannot receive in their corps.
A notorious burglar found himself landed here some time ago. He had enlisted, of course, under an "alias," in order to try and shake off his old associates, and go straight. There were several convictions against him, and he had done time in most of our large convict prisons.
I found him a very interesting man to talk to, and I asked him his opinion of our system. He was good enough to approve of the principle, "but," said he, "there is a great deal too much work here, sir; if I had got a long sentence (he was doing 28 days), I shouldn't stay with you!" I suppose he was as clever at getting out of places as he was at "effecting an entrance." I look upon this gentleman's testimony as a high compliment to the deterrent effect of detention.
In order to make the routine of a detention barrack real and genuine, and the treatment reformatory, it should have a capacity limited to hold only 200 men, or thereabouts.
There are only 24 hours in the day, and only 10 of these can be spent in reformatory work of the right "individual" kind.
Men must be informed on admission of what is going to happen to them, and it is up to the commandant and his staff to see that it docs happen to them. No angry shouting, no harsh words, no pushing or shoving, none but naval or military words of command; or by bugle, whistle, etc., but plenty of quiet advice, patience, help, sympathy. The mere "dignity" of the thing has its effect.
The staff should be hefty and strong, well set up and of good appearance. This generally will be found in the non-commissioned officer who is finally confirmed in his appointment, after a course of probation.
He is in every sense a picked man, a "sealed pattern." The sight of him is good for the evil-doer.
For a start I would recommend a detention barrack to be built or reappropriated in some big naval or military center, and placed under an officer whose tact and patience are beyond question; whose heart is in the matter of reform, and whose head is full of the information so gladly supplied by those who know the game.
The first step might be looked upon as experimental. "Provisional" regulations must be drafted, carefully considered and passed.
Sentences for offences against discipline only should be inflicted ranging from 28 days to 6 months.
Great attention must be paid to personal cleanliness, and "good order" in the "rooms." The food should be good, well served, and sufficient. These things act automatically and need no further explanation. They are the foundation on which a man's self-respect is reconstructed, and which, with the general treatment I have already described, produce a sane mind in a healthy body.
I have before me a letter dated nth May, 1912, from an admiral who sat in committee on our military detention system at the commencement of 1909. He says: "Our detention system is, I consider, a great success."
I have also a report rendered to our Admiralty in October, 1907, by a naval officer, whose wide experience as governor of a British naval prison, and whose first impressions of a British military detention barrack, are of the greatest value.
This officer's grasp of the situation, and the splendid honesty with which he records, in simple words, his conversion, must carry conviction to the minds of all who read his remarks.
I have permission to quote him:
I am unable to form any independent opinion as to the suitability of the military system as a deterrent front offences, but the military reports seem amply conclusive in its favor.
But, as a means of punishment for disciplinary offences, I consider it far superior to the existing naval system, though I was strongly predisposed against it when I started from here. Any remarks on the two systems inevitably fall into a statement of strong and absolutely opposed contrasts; no comparisons are possible.
The military system aims at "removing the stigma of imprisonment" from men in the army, and is carried out in all its details to the full logical extreme.
Prison terms are avoided. The "prison" is a "detention barrack," the "governor" is the "commandant," "warders" are "sergeants" or "the staff," "prisoners" are spoken of as "men," "cells" are "rooms," "imprisonment" is "detention," and the men are known and addressed by name, not by their numbers; they also retain their connection with their corps or regiments, and are throughout under the Army Discipline Act. Thus, the term "imprisonment," associated in most minds with criminals, of even the worst kind, is not associated with respectable men, who are under punishment for mere disciplinary offences, not disgraceful crimes.
The men are received in their regular uniforms, and in heavy marching order with their arms, which are in use constantly during their "detention." This avoids the public scandal of men in H. M. service being seen in the streets and trains handcuffed, and in what is evidently a prison dress, and sometimes arriving here at the same time as batches of convicts chained together, which is degrading to the men, and a slur on the service. This also avoids the expense of prison clothing, as none such is worn.
No useless labor is done, all the physical fatigue, which shot drill aims at as a part of the punishment, is inflicted much more efficiently by squad
Its appearance on the real range from a measured 35 yards demonstrated at 200 to 600 yards, inclusive, "all up," and company drill, the men being kept on the move as long as it lasts; and by Swedish exercises in which they are thoroughly taxed in every kind of muscular exertion.
I saw men in a state of breathlessness and sweat which is never dreamed of in a naval prison, and those who had been under the system for a short time were "hard as nails," and able to double round the exercise ground for two miles at a stretch.
The men are gradually brought up to this under the observation of the medical officer.
The industrial employment is in "association" except in the evenings in their "rooms" after supper. This is a great advantage, for the men are thus kept under observation all the time they are at work, and cannot "slack" off, so that the different abilities of men to do such work is fairly provided for, in a much more equitable way than by allotting fixed tasks, which, while fully occupying an old hand, shall not be unjustly severe on the beginner.
The loss of an hour daily for exercise, as in a naval prison, is avoided. Instead of a mere walk round a yard they have a vigorous "rouse about," and instructive set of drills, which must be more beneficial to the men, and, therefore, to their efficiency for duty on discharge, than mere walking, and sedentary work in cells, out of which many men only come for 1 ½ hours daily for weeks.
I was informed by my chief warder, some little time ago, when discussing with him the employment of some men just received from Malta Military Prison, that many had told him that they preferred the "quiet, sit in your cell" life of a naval prison, to the hustle of Corradino.
In addition to the infantry drills the men went through fairly stiff obstacle races, and the emulation evinced ensured a fatigue which very few men would willingly incur, and fewer still voluntarily often repeat. Semaphore and Morse were being taught, and the circumstances compelled the men to learn them which very few men of that class would voluntarily take the trouble to do. They were thus made more efficient for their service, and, considering that naval men are, as a rule, superior to army recruits, this appeal to their intelligence seems to me to be most desirable.
Musketry and Morris tube practice are taught with good results. These and the Dotter would be of great advantage, as privileged instruction, to our well-behaved men.
The instructors are smart, non-commissioned officers. If gunnery instructors were sent to our prisons for their last three or four years, a great deal might be done, and the additional cost to the service to provide the extra qualified men would be more than met by the saving of warder's pay, clothing, and continuous service pensions. But the selection of these petty officers would have to be most carefully made.
I think that many men, especially the younger ones, are disgusted with the service, and get into trouble through being harassed by their petty officers, who are impatient of their ignorance, expect them to know more than they do, and won't take the trouble to teach them. If I am right, such men going through a course under the contemplated system would return to their ships with confidence in themselves, and ability to do their work better, and so would no longer be a source of irritation to their petty officers.
I don't think it need be feared that, with the increase of improving accommodation the discipline of the service would suffer through the punishment not being penal enough. After all the men are not criminals, and sometimes were not really the ones most in fault (though this could not be pleaded except as I am now submitting it), they are, as a lot, good-hearted, straight men; and I have found with even the worst (one or two excepted) that they have responded quite respectfully to any individual appeal or show of personal interest. Quite recently when a man was brought before me for the 6th or 7th time in a short interval, for persistent laziness, I said to him, "I have tried every punishment on the list, now I'll try one which is not mentioned, and see how you take it, I let you off and give you nothing this time." He said most respectfully, "Then, sir, you'll not see me up again." And I did not He gave me no more trouble during his remaining month or six weeks.
It is worth mentioning that in their letters home, which I have to read, the men are at some pains to impress upon their friends that this is not a civil prison, and they point out the difference between crimes and offences. Let us get rid of all criminals.
To utilize the reputation which the army system has begun to get (and to strengthen it by adopting it), that men in the service places of confinement are not on the same footing as common criminals, I would like to see the army nomenclature adopted, and as far as practicable the procedure also.
The military system is found to give excellent results with men whose average period of confinement is less than 30 days. I should expect better results with us, for I find that during the last 6 years the average period of confinement has been (approximately) more than 60 days in this prison.
The question of material.
To sum up, the value of saving good material has, I trust, been made plain. The raw article is, on the whole, splendid. It improves or deteriorates according to circumstances.
Every man has some good, and most have some bad points. Foster the former, correct the latter, and your net result must be good, the gaps in your ranks few, and your morale, efficiency, "form," and general tone, wholesome, clean and satisfactory.
Statement Showing the Number of Sentences Served During the Year in Detention Barracks by Individual Soldiers | |||||
| ? | Number of times | Total | |||
Once | Twice | Three | Four and over | ||
Aldershot | 1,728 | 183 | 43 | 14 | 1,968 |
Colchester | 360 | 45 | 12 | 4 | 421 |
Devonport | 284 | 40 | 7 | 4 | 335 |
Gosport | 634 | 54 | 21 | 4 | 713 |
York | 410 | 37 | 6 | 2 | 455 |
Cork | 330 | 40 | 8 | … | 383 |
Dublin | 655 | 46 | 11 | 2 | 714 |
Stirling | 145 | 14 | 1 | … | 160 |
Bermuda | 23 | 5 | … | … | 28 |
Cairo | 149 | 13 | 2 | 3 | 167 |
Gibraltar | 227 | 15 | 5 | 4 | 251 |
Hong Kong | 79 | 12 | 5 | 2 | 98 |
Jamaica | 44 | 6 | 1 | … | 51 |
Kandy | 12 | 2 | 1 | … | 15 |
Malta | 287 | 75 | 20 | 42 | 424 |
Mauritius | 40 | … | … | … | 40 |
Pretoria | 276 | 56 | 16 | 8 | 356 |
Sierra Leone | 47 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 54 |
Singapore | 29 | 4 | … | … | 33 |
Wynberg | 61 | 10 | 3 | 1 | 75 |
Chelsea | 214 | 24 | 3 | 1 | 242 |
Pembroke Dock | 59 | 9 | 2 | … | 70 |
Shorncliffe | 284 | 25 | 3 | 1 | 313 |
Woolwich | 152 | 14 | 6 | … | 172 |
Jersey | 22 | 2 | … | … | 24 |
Khartoum | 21 | … | … | … | 21 |
Total | 6,572 | 7334 | 179 | 98 | 7,583 |