?
Idleness, hooliganism and repeated imprisonments for petty crime, until
something more serious happens, and then longer sentences. Such is the
progress of hundreds whom statisticians love to call "recidivists."

Am I wrong when I say that the State has been too ready, too prompt in
sending the youths of the ignorant poor to prison? Am I wrong in saying
that the State has been playing its "trump ace" too soon, and that it
ought to have kept imprisonment up its sleeve a little longer? These
lads, having been in prison, know, and their companions know, too, the
worst that can happen to them when they commit real crime. Prison has
done its worst, and it cannot hurt them.

If prisons there must be, am I wrong in contending that they should be
reserved for the perpetrators of real and serious crime; and that the
punishment, if there is to be punishment, should be certain, dignified
and severe, educational and reformative? At present it includes none of
these qualities.

To such a length has the imprisonment of youths for trumpery offences
gone, not only in London, but throughout the country, that visiting
justices of my acquaintance have spent a great deal of money in part
paying the fines of youths imprisoned under such conditions, that they
might be released at once. Here we have a curious state of affairs,
magistrates generally committing youths to prison in default for
trumpery offences, and other magistrates searching prisons for
imprisoned youths, paying their fines, setting them free, and sending on
full details to the Home Secretary.

It would be interesting to know how many "cases" of this kind have been
reported to the Home Secretary during the last few years. Time after
time the governors of our prisons have called attention to this evil in
their annual reports. They know perfectly well the disaster that attends
the needless imprisonment of boys, and it worries them. They treat
the boys very kindly, all honour to them! But even kindness to young
prisoners has its dangers, and every governor is able to tell of the
constant return of youthful prisoners.

I do not like the "birch" or corporal punishment at all. I do not
advocate it, but I am certain that the demoralising effect of a few'
days' imprisonment is far in excess of the demoralisation that follows a
reasonable application of the birch.

But the birch cannot be applied to lads over fourteen years of age, so
it would be well to abolish it altogether,