Full resolution (TIFF) - On this page / på denna sida - III. Chapter. Comparisons between the Auburn and Philadelphian penitentiary systems
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
Below is the raw OCR text
from the above scanned image.
Do you see an error? Proofread the page now!
Här nedan syns maskintolkade texten från faksimilbilden ovan.
Ser du något fel? Korrekturläs sidan nu!
This page has been proofread at least once.
(diff)
(history)
Denna sida har korrekturlästs minst en gång.
(skillnad)
(historik)
own dress, articles for the establishment &c. Where
labour in common, according to the Auburn system,
can be calculated on, it should be employed
in the construction of public buildings, such as
prisons, docks, fortifications &c. In this way the
labouring power of the prisoner may be applied
in a manner useful, as well to himself as to the
state, and the above mentioned inconveniences are
avoided.
There have also been different opinions on
the subject of the application of the prisoner’s
earnings, and M. Aylies, who has treated the question
with attention, considers, that the prisoner
ought not to have any part of it, but that the
whole gain belongs to the state. His opinion,
however, seems to be founded, in a great measure, on
the state of things prevailing in the French houses
of correction, where the contractors, who have
farmed the prisoners’ labour, not only appoint high
wages, but even give the prisoner an opportunity
of obtaining both food and wine, in order thus to
increase his power of labour as much as possible.
As a proof of the excess of these abuses, so
injurious for the inner discipline, and the prisoner’s
possible improvement, may be cited the circular
from the Board of Trade in 1834, which forbids
the selling of game or other uncommon articles of
food, that may be considered as luxuries, at the
sutlers (cantines) in the French houses of correction.
Hence it may be seen, how much the idea,
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
