We have discussed in previous issues of the Proceedings the methods and procedures of naval courts- martial and the causation of offenses. Our present major topic on the subject of naval war-time discipline relates to the treatment of convicted offenders.
At the present time there are approximately 15,000 men in confinement each day, some of whom are awaiting disposition of their cases or are held for transfer, but the majority of whom are serving sentences of confinement. The annual loss of effective man-days resulting from such confinement is in excess of four million per year. Since by far the greater number of those in confinement are, notwithstanding their derelictions, of potential value to the naval service, our primary concern is the return to active duty of these men at the earliest practicable time. Those who have been convicted by deck court or by summary court-martial and sentenced to confinement are, of course, restored to duty upon completion of their sentences. In general, it may be assumed that they have not been convicted of the more serious offenses and that the primary object of their confinement is individual punishment and example to others. We should, however, not fail to bear in mind that punishment should be designed for corrective and deterrent effect and not for mere retribution. Any other course can only lead to increase in the number of multiple offenders with a consequent additional loss of man power.
General court-martial prisoners present a more complicated problem. The majority of them are not inherently bad, and hence restoration to duty is also indicated. In many cases, so far as the individual offender is concerned, such restoration could properly be effected after relatively short confinement. Early return to duty, however, may lead to a vicious circle, because of the adverse effect on the general discipline of the service. The word is promptly spread through the fleet that punishments are so light that there is little resultant hardship following the commission of offenses. Brief incarceration or immediate probation, far from being a deterrent to the commission of offenses, becomes an incentive to those who are easily tempted to go astray. Hence in the treatment of prisoners, endeavor is made to reach a balance between the welfare of the individual and the welfare of the service as a whole which will bring about the best result from a disciplinary point of view.
Under present practices, a heavy responsibility is placed upon convening authorities of general courts-martial, since well over three quarters of all sentences are mitigated by them so as to provide for restoration to duty on probation at the end of prescribed portions of the periods of confinement adjudged. Our experience shows that this responsibility has, with few exceptions, been fully met. The few exceptions are nearly always attributable to a failure to exercise reasonable discretion in individual cases, where the history and background of the particular offender, frequently supplemented or susceptible of being supplemented by observation of the offender in confinement while awaiting trial, indicate that routine handling according to a rule of thumb is inappropriate.
There are only two U. S. Naval Prisons, officially classified as such, and these are located at Portsmouth and Mare Island. In general, the prisons are used for the confinement of general court-martial prisoners who have been sentenced for periods in excess of nine months. Other prisoners are confined in places variously denominated as brigs, disciplinary barracks, and detention barracks, there being little difference between them except in name. All are hereinafter to be deemed included in the term “brig.” In addition, one re-training command for prisoners has been established at Camp Peary, and it is the intention that one or more similar commands be established in the near future. To these re-training camps will be sent men who as indicated by the screening processes established at the naval prisons and brigs, are not inherently bad and are of suitable caliber for performing efficient naval service.
Certain brigs have been designated as authorized places of confinement for general court-martial prisoners. The principal brigs so designated are located at Hart’s Island, New York; Navy Yard, Philadelphia; Naval Repair Base, San Diego; Terminal Island (San Pedro); and Navy Yard, Bremerton. In addition there are a number of large brigs which are not used for general court-martial prisoners. The more important of these, all of which usually have over 300 prisoners, and some of which confine 1,000 or more are at the Receiving Station, Boston; Armed Guard Center, Brooklyn; Receiving Station, Norfolk; Naval Training Center, Great Lakes; Naval Station, New Orleans; Receiving Station, San Francisco; Training and Distribution Center, Shoemaker, California; and, for marine activities, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. There are in addition, a number of brigs ranging in capacity from 50 to 250, and a large number of small station brigs which usually have from 2 to 20 prisoners.
Until recently there was mixed jurisdiction over prisoners and places of confinement, the Chief of Naval Personnel, the Judge Advocate General, Commandants of Districts, Commandants' of Yards, and Commanding Officers each having in some cases certain duties and responsibilities. This situation has been clarified and improved as a result of an order of the Secretary of the Navy transferring to the Bureau of Naval Personnel all functions previously exercised by the Judge Advocate General in respect of the supervision and control of naval prisons and prisoners. There has been established in the Bureau a Corrective Services Division charged with the active supervision of prisoners and places of confinement. This amalgamation of prisoners and prison facilities under one head is an important step towards that unification of administration which will insure uniformity in the conduct of these places of confinement both as to treatment of prisoners and rehabilitation programs. At the same time, several of the major brigs have been established as separate commands, and this also should lead toward better administration, since these larger brigs placed an undue administrative burden on the commanding officers of the shore establishments within which they were located.
The present Manual for the Government of United States Naval Prisons, last revised in 1943, is applicable primarily to the two naval prisons. At other places which have been designated for confinement of general court- martial prisoners, the Manual provides that the regulations therein contained shall be “subject to necessary modification within the discretion of the commanding officer to conform harmoniously with local conditions.” Brigs not designated as places of confinement for general court-martial prisoners are not governed by the Manual, nor by any other complete set of rules and regulations promulgated by the Department. Lack of a comprehensive brig manual has been a contributory factor in the divergence of practices found in the brigs. Inspections by members of the Naval Clemency and Prison Inspection Board, and by other officers, disclosed this considerable variation in methods of handling prisoners. Such matters as the employment of prisoners, military conduct, drill, exercise, educational programs, censoring of mail, maintenance of security, clothing supply, and privileges of reading, writing, smoking, visiting, and recreation, varied from brig to brig. All activities had some good features, and only a few did not have some bad practices.
Experience has taught us to discriminate between sound and unsound practices, and indicated that the establishment of regulations applicable to all brigs would result in the elimination of unwise policies which have prevailed in certain quarters, and insure administration in accord with the best practices. The Corrective Services Division of the Bureau of Naval Personnel has undertaken the preparation of such a set of regulations, which should soon be available for the guidance of all concerned.
While, as has been noted, the methods and procedures of the places of confinement for naval prisoners are not entirely uniform, those in effect at one of the larger units, Naval Training Center, Great Lakes, may be described as a typical example. At this activity the following agencies were established:
(1) A Prison Board to report on and make recommendations respecting brig policy and administration.
(2) A Clemency Board to recommend clemency in deserving cases.
(3) A Medical Survey Board to recommend discharge, limited duty, or other suitable disposition in appropriate cases.
(4) A Screening Unit, the functions of which are hereinafter described.
Upon arrival each offender is taken to the Admitting Brig. Here he passes through the Screening Unit. As a first step, the offender receives physical, dental, and psychological examinations, each performed by specially trained staff officers. If found to be physically or mentally ill, the offender is transferred to the brig sick bay or to the Naval Hospital. Otherwise, the preliminary examination continues as follows:
(1) The offender, supervised by a neuropsychiatric technician, completes a primary work sheet summarizing his educational, family, marital, occupational, criminal, military, and religious background.
(2) The offender is given, by personnel trained in psychometric methods, the Revised Form of the Kent Oral Emergency Intelligence Test.
(3) The offender is given a modified Harrower- Erickson Group Rorschach Examination.
(4) The offender is interviewed by a psychologist. Interviews range from 10 to 30 minutes. The psychologist determines which of the following procedures may be appropriate:
(а) The Wechsler-Bellevue Scale of Adult Intelligence.
(b) The Shipley-Hartford Retreat Scale of Mental Impairment.
(c) The Minnesota Personality Inventory.
(d) The individual Rorschach Examination.
Upon the completion of study the psychologist’s report is added to the primary work sheet. This may be supplemented by information obtained by brig chaplains in nonconfidential interviews.
The offender is thereafter transferred from the Admitting Brig to the Main Brig. Here the data previously collected are systemized and studied by the senior medical officer and his assistants. The senior medical officer may then recommend to proper authority disposition most appropriate to the individual and the service, such as routine handling through the Discipline Office, delayed action pending further observation, appearance before a Medical Survey Board, or hospitalization. In addition the results of the study and observation made may be used in certain cases, in connection with the trial of the offender by court-martial, in the Provost Marshal’s Division as a basis for classification and segregation, in the Discipline Office, in the Legal Office, by the Chaplains, and in other branches.
The studies made and data compiled at the larger brigs, including those at Great Lakes, Hart’s Island, and Norfolk, provide accurate information concerning the type and character of men in confinement, an understanding of which is essential to the proper administration of our brigs and the correct disposition of individual cases. While no detailed comparison will be made between offenders and the service as a whole, a brief summary of facts concerning offenders, as developed at the major brigs will throw light on the nature of the problems involved.
Studies made at Great Lakes, Hart’s Island, and Norfolk are quite consistent with regard to objective facts. The following are noted:
(1) Age.—Approximately 60 per cent of all offenders fall within the 18 to 21 year age group. Nineteen is the age most frequently represented but since roughly one-half the total number of offenders are 20 or more years old the incidence of unauthorized absence and similar military offenses cannot properly be ascribed to “boyish” irresponsibility.
(2) Schooling.—The average amount of schooling for the offender is 9.3 grades, and 70 per cent of all offenders have had some scholastic work beyond grade school. Since there is a general correlation between education and intelligence, and since the amount of education of the offender group is at least equal if not somewhat superior to that of the general population, it must be assumed that insufficient intellectual endowment is not a primary cause of delinquency. The fact, however, should not be overlooked that approximately 4 per cent of all offenders are of defective intelligence, and these men, whose enlistment or induction is attributable to inadequate screening processes under the press of war conditions, have no potential value to the service and should be separated therefrom as promptly as possible, by administrative action if required.
(3) Length of Service.—Although length of service is, by no means, a guarantee against the commission of offenses, the data indicate that the periods immediately following recruit training and completion of the first tour of duty involving combat are most productive of offenses involving unauthorized absence.
(4) Marital status.—Approximately 65 per cent are single, 30 per cent are married, and the remainder fall within divorce, annulment, and separation categories.
(5) Broken homes.—Nearly one-half of all offenders come from homes broken by desertion, divorce, or death of one or both parents.
(6) Truancy.—Over one-third of all offenders have records of scholastic difficulties because of truancy. A considerable additional proportion were subjected to suspension or expulsion on account of other infractions of scholastic discipline.
(7) Civilian delinquency.—Exact figures cannot be given but the frequency of records of civilian delinquency among offenders is disproportionately large in relation to such delinquencies in the general population. This is all the more striking when it is considered that naval personnel represent a selected group.
(8) Previous convictions.—Forty-five per cent of offenders have had no previous convictions in naval service; 30 per cent have had one previous conviction and 25 per cent have had two or more previous convictions. “Conviction” may have been by deck court, summary court-martial, or general court- martial. Mast punishments are not covered. A tapering off in the number of new recruits will tend to increase the proportion of repeaters. Improved methods of rehabilitation and the present policies governing probation may reasonably be expected to exercise a counterinfluence.
In the field of neuropsychiatric diagnosis the studies made at these major brigs show considerable variance, attributable apparently for the most part to differences in methods, terminology, and the degree of assurance required to classify an offender as otherwise than normal. It appears to be true that not less than one-fifth of the total brig population fall within the classifications of psychopathic personality, psychoneurosis, chronic alcoholism, mental deficiency, neurological disorders, and psychosis. A great many more are immature, irresponsible, and unstable. A third large group is made up of willful evaders—men who prefer the security of a brig regardless of the stigma of confinement and ultimate discharge.
The results of the screening process will be considered further in connection with the technique of rehabilitation.
Following the screening process, segregation is in order. This involves the separation of the various types of prisoners with the purposes in view of minimizing custodial problems, of permitting the greatest amount of work and retraining, and of preventing the contamination of prisoners by the more undesirable of their number. Segregation may range from prisoner-at-large status for relatively minor first offenders to complete isolation for homosexuals, escape risks, and dangerous types, with varying degrees of rigidity of confinement and supervision for others. In the larger brigs, segregation may be systematically carried out in accordance with an established plan. Smaller units, limited by restricted facilities and sometimes inadequate complements of duty personnel, must necessarily depend in large part upon the ingenuity of individual commanding officers and officers in charge. Fortunately, the smaller commands do not as a rule either produce or receive many serious cases which must be dealt with in such commands.
Classification is a successive and related step. Such classification is not a standardized procedure but, in general, each major brig classifies its prisoners in two or more (usually three) groups. A typical classification system would provide for:
First class.—Prisoners whose conduct in confinement has been excellent, and whose offenses do not prevent promotion to this class. They receive such special privileges as may be granted by the commanding officer.
Second class.—Prisoners are, in the normal course, originally assigned to this class. They receive customary privileges as determined by the commanding officer. Their conduct in confinement determines their promotion to class one, retention in class two, or demotion to class three.
Third class.—Prisoners are placed in class three as a result of demotions from classes one and two, and, more rarely, where their offenses are of a very serious nature. They enjoy no privileges.
Classification has the great merit of furnishing an incentive to prisoners to perform creditably their prison assignments. In addition, it provides an effective disciplinary medium to officers in charge, not necessitating resort to further court-martial procedure.
Restriction upon the liberty of an offender consequent upon a sentence of confinement is not an end in itself but is merely a necessary prerequisite to the application of means to attain a desired result. Incarceration alone is worse than valueless both for the men confined and for the service, since confinement of this type creates a sense of antagonism in the individuals confined while doing nothing to make them better material for naval service. Imprisonment ceases to be profitless only when it is combined with programs of work and instruction. These programs must necessarily be adapted to the needs of the different classes of offenders.
The accidental offender who is fundamentally suitable for naval services requires aid in reaching an understanding of the reasons which led to his confinement and instruction which will make clear to him the many reasons why there should be no repetition of delinquency on his part. In such a case the educational program should be similar to that employed in recruit training. The punishment of confinement under a rigorous regimen and loss of pay coupled with instruction of the type indicated will, in these cases, tend to hold repetition of offenses to a minimum.
The willful evader who has sought the security of a brig in preference to active service is not apt to be in need of instruction as to his duties and obligations to the service and the seriousness of his offenses. In his case the problem is to convince him of the lack of wisdom of a deliberate choice, and, where indicated, to develop a more mature attitude. This is accomplished by exposing him to a program of vigorous physical activity, embracing work, drill, exercise, and study, with little or no interruption in the monotony of the schedule. Routine confinement or the threat of a dishonorable discharge is of little significance to an offender of this type. The program suggested will improve many of the offenders and discourage many potential evaders.
Those men of reasonably adequate mentality, characterized by self-centered attitudes, irregularities of behavior, lack of responsibility, and little capacity for regimentation, however described, require intensive activity in conjunction with an educational program concentrated on a development of habits of steady employment, the realization of the importance of individual tasks well done, and of pride in the Navy.
Confinement in naval prisons and brigs of habitual offenders and career criminals is useless from the standpoint of the service but these man cannot properly be released to society by the Navy. The only choice is to keep them usefully employed while in confinement on work projects which contribute to the war effort. There can be little doubt that these career criminals can be dealt with more adequately in established Federal or State penal institutions which, with their excellent facilities and experienced staffs, are well equipped to utilize to the best advantage such contribution as these men can make. At the present time the population of Federal and State prisons have shown a considerable decline and they could well accommodate, and indeed find use for, career criminals now in naval prisons. Certain procedural and administrative difficulties must be overcome before such a policy can be put in effect. A solution is currently being sought.
In many of these cases, as is amply established by the statistical data given above, we are, in fact, faced with the necessity of attempting to overcome serious deficiencies in juvenile training which have left these men with immature views, low moral standards, distorted social attitudes, and irregular and irresponsible behavior patterns. This is not an easy task. It is, however, one which the Navy has undertaken as a war-time measure, and in justice to the individuals concerned and the general public to which these men will eventually be returned.
The methods and objectives of rehabilitation for those who after careful screening are determined to be suitable material for restoration to duty are well expressed in a recent letter of instruction from the Chief of Naval Personnel to the Commandant, Naval Training and Distribution Center, Camp Peary, on the subject of the program of the Retraining Command. This letter of instruction directs, among other things, that: Emphasis shall be placed on positive disciplinary measures of work, education and training rather than on negative punitive methods. Confinement shall not be made desirable. Constant activity and rigid discipline shall be required.
To combat idleness, to afford the service some return for its expenditures, to improve morale and self-respect, and to increase skill, a program of useful work shall be inaugurated. Industries related to the service rather than “made work” not bearing such relationship shall be developed. The following activities are to be considered: manufacture of camouflage and cargo nets, fenders, life rings, pallets, packing cases, tent pins, and other useful supplies; repair of athletic gear, life jackets, mattresses, furniture, and other items of equipment; salvage of materials and equipment. The primary objective shall be training to increase skills and win confidence and self-respect through performance of useful tasks.
Discipline shall be inculcated and health and personal courage stimulated by drill, exercise, and competitive sports. Military training may embrace use and care of weapons, within the discretion of the Commanding Officer.
Education and Training Programs shall provide instruction in naval discipline, regulations, customs, history and tradition. Educational films shall be fully utilized. Elementary classes in reading, writing, spelling, and arithmetic shall be held for those in need of such instruction. Opportunity for spiritual training shall be afforded.
A Retraining Command, such as that at Camp Peary, represents a development of the rehabilitation program to a degree which is not feasible in all activities. Size alone is frequently a limiting factor. Rapid turnover and the necessity of caring for prisoners of low caliber are further impediments. Nevertheless, a zealous effort can be, and is being made to approach the ideal in all activities. Such effort will be aided by an intensive interest on the part of all commanding officers whose commands include places of confinement for naval prisoners. The improved practices now in effect, as further developed in the course of experience, will not only provide a better solution of the problems facing the Navy but will also be of incalculable benefit to the civilian community after the war.
The immediately preceding paragraphs have dealt mainly with rehabilitation procedures of the larger brigs, all of which have been established or greatly enlarged owing to war-time necessity. The Portsmouth Naval Prison is the oldest of our regular prison institutions. The prisoners confined there have committed the more serious offenses as is indicated by the fact that men are not sent to Portsmouth unless they have at least nine months to serve. The rehabilitation procedure at this institution is well established. The excellent results obtained attest the soundness of the methods employed.
In the last annual report of the Portsmouth Prison to the Secretary of the Navy a number of interesting facts appear. During the fiscal year ended June 30, 1944, 4,636 prisoners were received and 2,572 were released, of which number 2,078 or 80 per cent were restored to duty. The cost of conducting the institution was $967,404 and to offset this charge, credits were due the prison by reason of work performed for other departments and in no way connected with the administration or maintenance amounting to $699,570. The institution is thus nearly self-supporting.
The work activities are varied and useful. A Manufacture and Repair Department includes: a Printing Division, which performed over 900 print jobs, largely for the Portsmouth Navy Yard, attached craft, and destroyers of the Atlantic Fleet; a Bookbinding Division; a Cobbler Division; and a Tailoring Division, which employs an average of 100 men, and makes prison grays, as well as civilian clothing for discharged prisoners, not only for Portsmouth but also for other prisons and brigs. Much work of direct value to the war effort and of educational value to the prisoners is done in the Net Department. Approximately 350 men are there employed. During the year this Department produced 1,600 camouflage nets, over 4,000 carton nets, over 3,000 Manila slings and 3,000 wire slings, as well as many other items such as Manila straps, snorter straps, and fenders. A further major activity is found in the supply of labor to the navy yard.
The Commanding Officer, in his report, stated:
With salvage of man-kind as the paramount consideration the Commanding Officer and his staff have had the ordinary encouragements and discouragements that go with the administration of an institution peculiar in many respects, and not fully understood by all concerned. Fortunately, all under our care have been fully and profitably employed. When men have not been qualified for return to duty they have usually been returned to civil life better equipped to meet the trials and temptations that may confront them.
. . . Results obtained are gratifying, and . . . the outlook for the present year is bright, even though the percentage of those reclaimed may take a downward trend. This is but natural, in that other places of confinement will be designated for the better element, while Portsmouth will receive an increasingly higher percentage of misfits and irredeemables. Even so, the individual and not the offense will continue to be the deciding factor in the effort to reclaim. . . . Sufficient compensation for the effort put forth is to be found in the file containing a vast number of letters from Commanding Officers afloat attesting the results, their evidence being that the men transferred from here to their commands are, for the most part, putting forth an honest and successful effort.
In war time the object of rehabilitation is restoration to duty. It is natural that there should be some complaint and criticism predicated upon the contention that those in authority are too liberal in the exercise of clemency. Irritation upon encountering individual cases of repetition of offenses, inadequate punishments, and spreading of the word that the discomfiture experienced in confinement is more than offset by the pleasure obtained through committing the offense tends to becloud the view of the picture as a whole. The facts are that during the first six months of the year 1944 the number of violations of probation was less than 15 per cent of the total number of probationers. While 85 per cent salvage in selected general court-martial prisoners is not perfection, the assertion that it represents a high level of attainment can hardly be disputed. The Department welcomes justified criticism in individual cases, for realization of error is one factor in avoiding recurrence of mistakes. It should be borne in mind, however, that we are not dealing in a field where mathematical accuracy can be attained. A margin of error of from 5 per cent to 10 per cent must be allowed. Reduction below that level would be indicative of unduly restrictive probationary policies with a resultant net loss to the service.
In a previous article reference was made to the Naval Clemency and Prison Inspection Board, of which the writer is the senior member. The composition and functions of the Board were briefly discussed. The administration of clemency in fact involves three separate processes. Clemency is frequently exercised by convening authorities in acting upon the findings and sentences of courts- martial convened by them. Clemency may also be granted by the Secretary of the Navy upon the recommendation of the Chief of Naval Personnel, the Commandant, Marine Corps, or the Commandant, Coast Guard, after review of court-martial records in the Department. Lastly, clemency may be granted by the Secretary of the Navy upon the recommendation of the Board. Except in unusual cases, the Board does not consider a request for clemency unless the offender has served one-third of his sentence of confinement. Although empowered so to do, the Board has not as yet, on its own initiative, considered a single case for clemency. It has considered hundreds of requests which have been initiated by prisoners or by Commanding Officers of places of confinement. The practice has been established of forwarding such requests, with the recommendation of the prisoner’s Commanding Officer in each case, to the Secretary of the Navy via the Chief of Naval Personnel, the Commandant, Marine Corps or the Commandant, Coast Guard, according to the branch of service of the particular prisoner. Where the recommendations involve restoration to duty and the prison authorities and cognizant office in the Department are in accord, restoration is automatic. Where the case calls for any other disposition or the recommendations from the prison or brig and the Department are not in agreement, the Board considers the matter in detail and makes a specific recommendation to the Secretary of the Navy as to the action considered appropriate.
The results of the rehabilitation and clemency systems may be illustrated by statistics covering the first six months of the current year. During that time 5,727 men were restored to duty pursuant to their sentences, as mitigated by convening authorities, or by order of the Secretary of the Navy upon the recommendation of prison authorities, cognizant offices in the Department, and the Naval Clemency and Prison Inspection Board. There were 709 violations of probation during this same period. These and other available figures indicate that about 87 per cent of all probationers make good, and that at the current rate over 9,000 men are annually saved for the service. Better methods of rehabilitation and greater care in the selection of probationers may be expected to reduce the percentage of probation violations. Improvement in the treatment of probationers in some commands would also contribute materially to a decline in the number of violations. Coddling is not called for, but fair treatment is necessary. Probationers have been led to believe that, subject to good behavior, they start again with a clean slate. Discrimination in such matters as leave, liberty, privileges, and assignments at a duty station inevitably results in some violations which would not otherwise occur. Termination of probation is, in a sense, the most serious thing that can happen to an offender. Its consequences are more apt to have a permanent effect, since further clemency, a “second chance,” is not apt to be accorded. This policy very properly puts probationers on their mettle. It also should make commanding officers reluctant to terminate probation except for clearly adequate cause.
The present war has brought notable technological progress, and tremendous achievement in materiel, both qualitatively and quantitatively. This performance, deserving as it is of all the praise it has received, has been so readily observable as to focus attention. In so doing, it has tended to obscure an accomplishment of even greater fundamental importance, and that is the attainment of an effective naval service of three and one-half million trained men. In the realization of this result, the entire disciplinary process plays a part, perhaps small but of indubitable necessity. Officers and men alike engaged in its administration, not the most pleasant of duties, may justly take pride in a record of accomplishment, none the less meritorious because it commands little notice and less appreciation.
This is the third and concluding article of this series of articles on Naval War-Time Discipline.