A defence of the system of solitary confinement of prisoners adopted by the state of Pennsylvania : with remarks on the origin, progress and extension of this species of prison discipline / by George W. Smith.

  • George W. Smith
Date:
1833
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: A defence of the system of solitary confinement of prisoners adopted by the state of Pennsylvania : with remarks on the origin, progress and extension of this species of prison discipline / by George W. Smith. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    2/104
    ERRATA. Page 13, line 17, for “affected,” read effected. Page 25, line 2 of the note, after “ which,” add (with the exception of the Penitentiary department.) Page 41 and 42, line 1, for “first tried with,” read at first tried with nearly. ’ 5age 47, line 42, after “ buildings,” add,—we request the reader to observe that we refer to the county prisons of Pennsylvania, when compared with those of Gloucester¬ shire. The Penitentiary department of the county prison, in the city of Gloucester, was not superior to the Penitentiary house at Philadelphia, and the discipline of the latter was certainly, in theory, (and, as at first administered, in practice also,) superior. See pages 51 and 104. Page 48, line 38, after “ confinement” read some of them. Page 48, line 39, after “ others” read nevertheless. Page 49, line 11, for “this,” read these. Page 50, line 47, after “ Pennsylvania” read until 1829. Previous to the latter year, the law inflicting solitary confinement was enforced in this state only in a limited and very imperfect degree. Even in Philadelphia, minor offenders were very rarely thus punished. In Great Britain this discipline has been extensively applied to nearly every class. The more atrocious criminals in the latter country, are either hanged or transported, and.
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3