Leon Trotsky: Penitentiary¹ Ideals and a Humane Prison Vision

[my own translation of the Russian text in “Vostnochnoe Obozrenie” {Eastern Outlook} No. 135 and 136, 20 and 21 June/3 and 4 July, 1901, reprinted in Sochineniya, Vol. 20, Moscow-Leningrad 1926, p. 86-93, compared to the German translation. Corrections by English native speakers would be extremely welcome]

"People of culture see in the idea of ​​statehood the basis for a certain kind of profession, which gives either direct benefits in the form of salaries, or indirect benefits in the form of a bonus for belonging to one or another political party." ("Well-meaning Speeches" – "In Pursuit of Ideals".)

So says Saltykov. And many platonic "admirers" and "worshippers" of this writer, who somehow got used to the "idea" of statehood as a "basis", would become much more moderate in their sympathies for the great Russian satirist if they got to know the imperishable legacy of the writer they worship so much, read so little and do not understand so thoroughly ...

In the middle of last year, in the capital of Belgium – not for the first time, by the way – venerable criminologists and prison experts from different parts of the world gathered to discuss issues of their venerable profession.

How enthusiastically true civic hearts beat while observing the work of this Congress for the benefit of world progress! What a delight emanated from the fact that, despite the "misunderstanding" between European countries and China, these countries had so many common interests in the field of prison science that China was represented at the congress by one official delegate. This delegate, however, to the great bewilderment of the author of the correspondences we use^A, "for some reason did not show up" at the session of the congress. Perhaps this fact was the manifestation of the peculiarities of Chinese citizenship: brought up on the horrors of the Chinese regime, with its complete absence of personal guarantees, the uncultured Chinese delegate could fear that he himself, in view of the delicacy of the modern international position of China, did not have to personally verify the high excellence in European penitentiary institutions. How wrong he was then, this naive son of the Heavenly Empire! What an imperfect notion he had of the dazzling successes of European humanity!

How much time, in fact, has passed since the "good old time” when – in the words of I. Ya. Foinitsky – “criminologists corresponded to the name and concept of the whip-fighters"? And now? Needless to say, the Belgian Congress, which had the "character of summarising the accounts of the past century", showed the brilliant achievements of prison science in the nineteenth century, and opened even more radiant horizons, lifting the curtain of the future with a competent hand.

The Belgian Minister of Justice, who opened the Congress, referred in his "short speech" mainly to "the enormous successes achieved by the science of prison management during the past century" ... Inviting the Congress to personally verify the merits of the Belgian penitentiary institutions, the minister said, among other things: "The widespread arrangement of solitary confinement will soon be finished with us. I cannot say that it will be final, or that the domination of this system will remain unchanged (!) – this would be tantamount to claiming that we have reached the ideal (!!!); it would be tantamount to denying the ability of everything earthly to constantly improve ... There are two almost equally terrible dangers: the indifferent immobility of routine and the feverish haste of transformation. " (My italics. LT )

What a breadth of social and historical horizons! What a deep evolutionary-scientific point of view!

Is it surprising if, in view of the solid gains made over the past century by the "science" of penitentiary institutions, the current chairman of the Congress (Mr. De Latour) exclaimed in a burst of high professional and civic enthusiasm: “The mystery, whose solution was so greedily sought, does it remain a mystery to this day? Has the key to it been found?” – And all the congress participants were filled with a proud consciousness that, after an avid search for theoretical thought, the key to the seemingly fatal penitentiary secret was finally found in the system of solitary confinement.^B

And what?

The ink on the minutes of the Brussels congress had not yet dried properly, as the Moscow congress of the Russian group of the International Union of Criminalists in April of this year listened with sympathy and approval to the following speeches: “The development and improvement of man has taken place and is taking place in the society of his own kind, and in accordance with with this instruction, the reformatories (American correctional and educational institutions for adults) abandon the unnatural solitary system, capable only of dulling a person and killing any initiative in him, in favour of the expediently arranged system of joint confinement ... "(D. A. Dril's speech).

In the eyes of an outsider all the other results of the work of Messrs. Criminologists are equally confused. On 4 April, K. S. Gogel in his report rejected the value of the prison in general as a correctional institution for criminals, on the grounds that the imprisonment of a criminal had brought meagre results in the struggle of the government and society against crime. And all the congress participants listened to these speeches in the pleasant consciousness of their humanity, and before the closing of the congress, chairman I. Ya. Foinitsky thanked Mr. Gogel, among other speakers, for the "general political and philanthropic direction."

Presumably, Mr. Zhizhilenko also listened to these speeches, and perhaps he himself said something in this innocently humane manner. But on 7 April, that is, on the third day, in his speech on the law on June 10-12, 1900 (on the abolition of exile), Mr. Zhizhilenko expressed his pleasure that, thanks to the introduction of the new law, imprisonment would occupy a central position in our punitive system which circumstance would give the opportunity to employ the entire mass of people who were left idle in exile and laid down a burden on society.

What is this?

The solitary cell is excellent! The key to the secrets of prison science! A faithful and humane means, in the deeply Christian opinion of Father Joseph Fudel, to influence the morality of the criminal!

Organised joint confinement is expedient – incomparable! It will finally drive out the system of solitary confinement cells, which, in Mr. Dril's opinion, by their unnatural character can only blunt the criminal and kill any initiative in him!

Jail? What did it give as a means of fighting crime? Zero! It showed its complete failure, it turned into an academy of vice! – Mr. Gogel declares to the general delight of the congress participants.

Prison, as a substitute for exile, is great! It will create a social economy of labour forces, it will instill in the criminal a love and habit of systematic work! – unfold the prison perspectives of Mr. Zhizhilenko in front of the enchanted listeners.

And the Congress listens to everyone and thanks everyone for the "political and philanthropic" direction: Mr. Zhizhilenko and Mr. Gogel, Mr. Dril and Father J. Fudel – the latter especially: for his speech "elegant in form and high in content", "finally emphasising the general political and philanthropic direction of the congress"^C (words of the chairman's concluding speech).

Good "science"! It approves of everything, accepts everything, digests everything, covers everything with its name. Those legal norms, which, in the eyes of an outsider, appear to be the products of grossly selfish private interests, turn out, according to the interpretation of professionalists, to be indisputable suggestions of the objective "science" of law.

So, for example, on the question: "Should it be allowed to extradite those who committed crimes abroad to the states of which they are nationals?" The Brussels Congress adopted the formula of a Parisian professor, stating that "the extradition of one's criminal subjects is a way to achieve the correct administration of criminal justice, for it must recognise the demand of science (here it is!) that the court be assigned, as far as possible, to the institutions of the state where the crime was committed." Since science requires it – there is nothing to be done! And who, then, should formulate its demands if not the professors, its officially recognised and appropriately paid interpreters?

At the same congress, the priests of legal truth practiced for a long time in the finest scientific determinations (definitions), in the most complex and delicate deductions in order to master the "elusive concept of blackmail" (sic!), And, having caught the elusive, burst into joyful applause for the glory of the all-conquering science.

★

★ ★

And this is "science"?

No, a thousand times no! There are elements of apologetics, rhetoric, sophistry, scholasticism – but not a single gran of science!

The harsh and impudently practical genius of social repression does his gloomy business without thinking about theoretical premises, and only having done what is necessary, summons the owl of the philosophical and legal Minerva and imperiously demands: “Justify!”, And she justifies. And how not to justify? After all, the wise owl of theory is dependent on social practice!

I. Ya. Foinitsky especially emphasises that although at the Moscow congress "even (!) motives of philanthropy sounded, in spite of it the true interests of state and society have never been violated by the resolutions of the congress"^D, which means translated into vulgar language: although theoretical reason lied, it was never mendacious, and for all its exaggerations it did not commit offences in relation to those interests that are usually called the interests of society and the state and the nakedness of which the theoretical mind was instructed to cover up with the delicate fabric of logical constructions.

These venerable men of science could not afford to criticise the solitary confinement system in Belgium, where this system had just been completed by the time of the Congress. All their disagreements are essentially innocent in nature: they are purely dialectical conversations of people who ultimately pursue the same tasks, by the same means, and are least of all inclined to violate the so-called true interests of the so-called society.

What is the mechanism of their objective-legal constructions? It's very simple.

The professorial mind establishes a basic principle.

The professorial will outlines the final conclusion to which it is necessary to come, for this is required, in our case, by the practical genius of social repression.

The task of the mind is to engage in the construction of pure deductions from a basic principle, with the appearance of a subject, carelessly taking a logical walk and having no empirical goal in front of it.

The task of the will is to place such "attracting and repelling" moments of the mind's attention on the path of the procession of the mind – in the form of imperceptibly introduced premises – so that the mind, in an unexpected way for itself, under the influence of these delicate impulses from the will, finds itself at the desired goal , linking the basic principle with a pre-given conclusion along the way of its journey in an elegant and seemingly very impressive chain. Bringing reason to the goal, the will says: “which was required to be proved,” and indeed: the fact of social repression, coarse in its empirical nakedness, has already been ordained to the rank of principle and is enlightened by the high blessing of “pure thought”.

So: while the practical reason of social repression is servile before the prevailing interests, the pure legal reason wags before the practical one. Poor "pure reason", pathetic "regal thought"!

"... the queen of nature

She must appear, man

Made her a slave to his inclinations;

She, the messenger of the gods, was forced

To serve humbly at that table

Around which passions feast;

Or stand outside the door to stare

at those burning from hunger , do not embarrass

Their well-fed orgies; clean after them

And clean up the dirt left behind;

Help them in despicable deeds

And cover them with loud words!

Here is the lie that stigmatises the human forehead!

(Tor Hedberg, "Gerhard Grim", "Nachalo", March 1899)²

In Grim, as an individualistic philosopher, the resulting conclusion takes on an individualistic formulation: the mind serves the passions, the conscious serves the unconscious, the spirit serves the body, and the thought serves the great “Self”. But the same conclusion for our purposes requires a sociological formulation: social thought in its recognised legal forms has been and remains a servant of the prevailing public interests.

That is why it is difficult to expect from it scientific conclusions, broad sociological generalisations, and bold sobering criticism!

That is why it can talk with equal success about the benefits of solitary confinement, as well as about the dangers of it, without stepping on the corns of "the true interests of society and the state"!

That is why its "method" is flowery rhetoric, and sometimes even crude sophistry!

That is why, finally, we, outsiders, despite our deep respect for true science, or, better to say, because of such respect, have the right to throw at this supposedly science the contemptuous verse:

"Here is the lie that stigmatises the human forehead!"