Jailed for Freedom Part 62

Mrs. Donald R. Hooker, Md.

Mrs. Lawrence Lewis, Pa.

Miss Doris Stevens, N. Y.

Miss Maud Younger, Cal.

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 1919-1990

Miss Alice Paul, N. J., Chairman Miss Mabel Vernon, Del., Secretary Miss Mary Gertrude Fendall, Md., Treasurer Mrs. Abby Scott Baker, D.C.

Mrs. O. H. P. Belmont, N.Y.

Mrs. John Winters Brannan, N.Y.

Miss Lucy Burns, N. Y.

Mrs. Gilson Gardner, D. C.

Mrs. Thomas N. Hepburn, Conn.

Mrs. Florence Bayard Hilles, Del.

Mrs. Donald R. Hooker, Md.

Mrs. Henry G. Leach, N. Y.

Mrs. Lawrence Lewis, Pa.

Miss Doris Stevens. N. Y.

Mrs. Richard Wainwright, D. C.

Miss Maud Younger, Cal.

{375}

Appendix 6

Concerning Political Prisoners

Definitions

James Bryce:[1]

"Perhaps we may say that whenever the moral judgment of the community at large does not brand an offence as sordid and degrading, and does not feel the offence to be one which destroys its respect for the personal character of the prisoner, it may there be held that prison treatment ought to be different from that awarded to ordinary criminals."

George Sigerson:[2]

"Men may differ, in thought and deed, on many questions without moral guilt. Forms of government and measures relating to the welfare and organization of society have been, in all ages and countries, questions on which men have entertained divergent convictions, and a.s.serted their sincerity by conflicting action, often at grave personal sacrifice and the loss of life. On the other hand, all people are agreed in condemning certain acts, stigmatized as crimes, which offend against the well-being of the individual or the community.

"Hence, civilized states distinguish between actions concerning which good men may reasonably differ, and actions

[1]James Bryce made this distinction in 1889 between the two kinds of offenders. Letter Introductory to "Political Prisoners at Home and Abroad," Sigerson.

[2]"Political Prisoners at Home and Abroad."

{376}

which all good men condemn. The latter, if permitted to prevail, would disintegrate and destroy the social life of mankind; the former, if successful, would simply reorganize it, on a different basis . . . . The objects may, in one generation, be branded as crimes, whilst in the next those who fail to make them triumph and suffered as malefactors are exalted as patriot martyrs, and their principles incorporated amongst the foundation principles of the country's const.i.tution.

"Attempts to effect changes by methods beyond the conventions which have the sanction of the majority of a community, may be rash and blameworthy sometimes, but they are not necessarily dishonorable, and may even occasionally be obligatory on conscience."

As to the inc.u.mbency upon a government to differentiate in punishments inflicted upon these two cla.s.ses of offenders, he further says: "When a Government exercises its punitive power, it should, in awarding sentence, distinguish between the two cla.s.ses of offenders. To confound in a common degradation those who violate the moral law by acts which all men condemn, and those who offend against the established order of society by acts of which many men approve, and for objects which may sometime be accepted as integral parts of established order, is manifestly wrong in principle. It places a Government morally in the wrong in the eyes of ma.s.ses of the population, a thing to be sedulously guarded against."

George Clemenceau:[1]

"Theoretically a crime committed in the interest of the criminal is a common law crime, while an offense committed in the public interest is a political crime." He says further, "That an act isolated from the circ.u.mstances under which it was committed . .

. may have the appearance of a common

[1]Clemenceau in a speech before the French Chamber of Deputies, May 16th, 1876, advocating amnesty for those who partic.i.p.ated in the Commune of 1871. From the Annals de la Chambre des Deputies, 1876, v. 2, pp. 44-48.

{377}

law crime . . : while viewed in connection with the circ.u.mstances under which it is committed (in connection with a movement) . . .

it may take on a political character."

Maurice Parmelee:[1]

"Common crimes are acts contrary to the law committed in the interest of the individual criminal or of those personally related to the criminal. Political crimes are acts contrary to the law committed against an existing government or form of government in the interest of another government or form of government . . . . .

"Furthermore, there are other offenses against the law which are not common crimes, and yet are not political crimes in the usual criminological sense . . . .

"Among these crimes, which are broader than the ordinary political crimes, are offenses in defense of the right to freedom of thought and belief, in defense of the right to express one's self in words in free speech, . . . and many illegal acts committed by conscientious objectors to the payment of taxes or to military service, the offenses of laborers in strikes and other labor disturbances, the violations of law committed by those who are trying to bring about changes in the relations between the s.e.xes, etc.

"Common crimes are almost invariably anti-social in their nature, while offenses which are directly or indirectly political are usually social in their intent, and are frequently beneficial to society in their ultimate effect. We are, therefore, justified in calling them social crimes, as contrasted with the anti-social common crimes . . . . ."

[1]"Criminology" by Maurice Parmelee, Chap. XXVIII. Author also of "Poverty and Social Progress," "The Science of Human Behavior," "The Principles of Anthropology and Sociology in their relation to Criminal Procedure." During the late war Dr. Parmelee was a Representative of the U. S. War Trade Board stationed at the American Emba.s.sy, London; economic advisor to the State Department, and Chairman of the Allied Rationing Committee which administered the German Blockade.

{378}

TREATMENT ACCORDED POLITICAL PRISONFRS ABROAD

It is interesting to note what other countries have done toward handling intelligently the problem of political offenders.

Russia was probably the first country in modern history to recognize political prisoners as a cla.s.s,[1] although the treatment of different groups and individuals varied widely.

First of all, the political offender was recognized as a "political" not by law, but by custom. When sure of a verdict of guilty, either through damaging evidence or a packed jury, the offender was tried. When it was impossible to commit him to trial because there were no proofs against him, "Administrative Exile"

was resorted to. These judgments or Administrative orders to exile were p.r.o.nounced in secret on political offenders; one member of the family of the defendant was admitted to the trial under the law of 1881. Those exiled by Administrative order were transported in cars, but stopped en route at the etapes, political prisoners along with common law convicts. Since 1866 politicals condemned by the courts to hard labor or to exile, journeyed on foot with common law convicts.[1]

There were no hospitals for political exiles; doctors and '

surgeons among the exiled helped their sick comrades.

Families were permitted to follow the loved ones into exile, if they chose. For example, wives were allowed to stay at Lower Kara, and visit their husbands in the prison in Middle Kara twice a week and to bring them books.

When criminal convicts were freed in Siberia after serving a given sentence at hard labor, they received an allotment of land and agricultural implements for purposes of sustenance, and after two years the government troubled no more about

[1]Siberia received its first exiles [non-conformists] in the 17th Century.

{379}

them. They became settlers in some province of Southern Siberia.

With political exiles it was quite different. When they had finished a seven, ten, or twelve year sentence, they were not liberated but transferred to the tundras within the Arctic Circle.