method of prolonged cellular isolation?  And how can that which is condemned by the experience of ordinary life become useful on the day some tribunal pronounces a sentence of imprisonment?  The physiological and moral inconveniences of prolonged solitude are evident in other ways; and attempts are made to combat them by great humanity in external things.  So much is this the case, that for fear of being cruel to the good, the bad are also pampered by an exaggerated philanthropy which reaches absurd heights.”

A compromise between the absolute seclusion of the cellular system, and the system of free association, is now being advocated by some students of prison discipline.  Prisoners, it is contended, should be carefully classified according to their previous character and the nature of their offence, and also according to the disposition they manifest in prison.  Prisoners sentenced to a term of imprisonment ranging from three months to two years should during the first three months remain in solitary confinement for purposes of observation as to diligence and character.  At the end of that period a man, if he showed fitness for it, would be placed in association during his working hours, and in his cell during the remainder of the day.  In this way his social instincts would not be so completely stifled as they are at present; he would not be so entirely left to the vacuity of his own mind; he would not be so readily led to the indulgence of disgusting vices ruinous to body and mind.  In countries where prisons are on a large scale such a system as this might easily be adopted, and it would, if properly managed, be productive of beneficial results.  In small prisons it would be applicable on a limited scale, the smallness of the prison population preventing proper classification.

But all prison systems, however excellent in theory, are comparatively useless unless conducted in an enlightened spirit by competent and sagacious officials.  The best of systems if worked, as sometimes happens, by a mere martinet, with no horizon beyond insisting on the letter of official regulations, will be productive of no good whatever, and, on the other hand, an indifferent system will achieve excellent results with a competent person at the head of it.  This was admirably pointed out by the head of the Danish Prison Department at the Stockholm Prison Congress.  “Give me,” he said, “the best possible regulations and a bad director, and you will have no success.  But give me a good director, and, even with mediocre regulations, I will answer for it that everything will go on marvellously.”  In a recent handbook on prison management by Herr Krohne, an eminent prison director in the German service, the qualifications requisite for successful prison work are clearly laid down.