Solution Manual For Essentials of Anatomy and Physiology 1st by Patton
Solution Manual For Essentials of Anatomy and Physiology 1st by Patton
Solution Manual For Essentials of Anatomy and Physiology 1st by Patton
incorporates crime scenes, superheroes and more. While traditional lab manuals
simply offer core concepts on A&P topics, this one-of-a-kind resource presents
material from easily understood comparisons to help you learn about A&P from a
real-world point of view. Plus, hands-on activities experiments help link what you're
Labeling exercises help you memorize the small details of complicated body
knowledge of the world in general help you make connections between the
Only for new subscribers who have not received offer in last 90 days. Renews
Product details
Language : English
Under this Act the State is to be divided into Nine Districts, in each of
which is to be established an Industrial Farm to which prisoners
sentenced to serve terms in county jails are to be sent. Each
Institution is to be managed by a Board of Trustees which shall be
composed of one county commissioner from each county of the
district, to be appointed by the judge of Quarter Sessions.
The members of the first Board of Trustees shall be appointed to
serve until the expiration of their respective terms of office as county
commissioners. Each Board of Trustees is hereby authorized to
select a suitable site for such Industrial Farm and to make
arrangements for the erection and equipment of the necessary
buildings. The Farm is not to exceed five hundred acres in extent.
The buildings are to be “plain and inexpensive in character,” and the
labor as far as possible is to be supplied by the convicts committed
to said institution.
The ninth section of the Act provides that the court of Quarter
Sessions in any county “may, in its discretion, transfer from the
county jails and prisons, respectively, to such penal farm those who
have been sentenced to the county prison for any crime,
misdemeanor, or felony (murder and voluntary manslaughter
excepted),” and also those detained for non-payment of fines and
costs, or for non-support; in fact, any persons legally confined in the
county jails except those who are held for trial. And hereafter the
court may, in its discretion, send those convicted as above directly to
said Industrial Farm.
As far as practicable the selection of the site for the farm shall have
reference to its advantages for various forms of husbandry, fruit-
growing, stock-raising, for brick-making, for the preparation of road
and paving material, and shall have good railroad, drainage, sewage
and water facilities. The prisoners are to be employed in work “on or
about the buildings and farm” in raising stock and supplies for the
use of said institution and for the use of other public and charitable
institutions in the District.
“All road material, brick, tile and concrete prepared” at these farms
not needed for the purposes of the institution, shall be offered for
sale at a price to be fixed by the Board of Trustees, the proceeds to
be applied towards paying the overhead expenses of said institution.
Discipline.
“All inmates shall be clothed and treated as provided for in this Act,
and in the rules and regulations of the industrial farm.”
Penalties.
“If any person refuses to perform the work assigned to him or her, or
is guilty of other acts of insubordination, the superintendent shall
punish such person by close confinement and a diet of bread and
water only, or in such other manner as the rules and regulations ...
may prescribe.”
Inebriates.
Expense.
The original cost of the farm and buildings and all fixed overhead
charges “shall be paid by the counties constituting the district, in the
ratio of their population according to the last preceding United States
census.” “The cost of the care and maintenance of the inmates shall
be certified monthly to the counties from which inmates have been
committed. Such cost shall be paid by the counties in proportion to
the number of inmates committed from each county.”
On first reading there were some provisions of the Act which seemed
impracticable. But we believe these minor imperfections may easily
be corrected by future legislative enactment. The general principle of
the Act is sound and in accordance with the trend of public
sentiment. Massachusetts and Indiana both have Industrial Farms
for prisoners serving short-time sentences. The State of Indiana has
one such farm in successful operation, but we are informed some
officials are convinced that it would have been wiser to institute two
or three such farms. The original bill we favored provided for six such
plantations. However, the nine farms may each have over 500
inmates to be cared for and employed.
It may be unfortunate that the farms are limited to 500 acres.
Allegheny County now has a farm of over 600 acres, and has under
cultivation about 500 acres. This county will be united with four other
counties in the management of the Industrial Farm for the Second
District, and 500 acres will prove insufficient. It may be wise to
amend the Act making it possible to secure a farm of 1000 acres if
thought desirable. It has been found to be an economical proposition
to establish penal farms on waste land and by means of drainage,
leveling, removing of rocks and scientific tillage and fertilizing to
make the “wilderness blossom as the rose.” On a Penal Farm in
Florida may now be seen flourishing corn and cane fields where
three years ago was the lair of alligators. At Occoquan, Va., Warden
Whittaker has transformed barren, arid, scrub pine lands, costing
from five to fifteen dollars per acre, into a splendid plantation
abounding in orchards, grain fields, gardens and small fruits.
Similarly very cheap land at Bridgwater, Mass., has been cleared off
and changed into a handsome productive farm.
It might be easier to limit the amount of money to be expended for
the site, the only condition being that the farm should contain at least
500 acres.
Escapes.
Escapes were quite numerous from the Indiana State Farm when
they first were trying the experiment. The passage of a State law
severely penalizing the man who escapes (he is nearly always
caught), justly punishing him with several years of imprisonment at
the State Penitentiary has lessened the number making effort to
escape.
Some of these prisoners are held from thirty to ninety days. Why not
allow them the option of languishing in idleness at the detention
prison or of engaging in healthful occupation on the farm? The option
should be given, as they can not be compelled to work. Such
privilege should be granted with circumspection. The Court not
generally being in session when such offenders are arrested could
not pass judgment as to whether such privilege should be granted.
The nature of the accusation must be taken into consideration. We
are sure that a goodly number of those who are thus held might be
sent to the Industrial Farm, but the details connected with such
permission are yet to be arranged.
Compensation.
Nothing is said in the Act with regard to any compensation. It is
expected that these farms will ultimately become self-supporting and
may to some extent become a source of profit. We think it is within
the province of the Board of Trustees to fix the compensation. An
addition to the Act as soon as practicable should be enacted
providing for compensation to be sent, part to the family, if in need,
of the prisoner, and a part to be held for the prisoner at the time of
his discharge. The wages will be graded with reference to the
character of the labor. It is a wise provision of the law that the labor
of prisoners in the construction of the buildings shall be availed of as
far as possible.
Industries.
Inebriate Home.
Expenses.
Original cost of farm and buildings paid by counties according to
population. Overhead expenses to be paid by counties according to
population. Care and maintenance of inmates to be paid by counties
for each inmate sent. Each county pays for transportation of its
inmates to the institution. The transportation of the convict when
discharged will be charged, so it appears, to overhead expenses of
the institution.
Thus, every county will pay pro rata according to population a share
of the expense of purchasing the land and erecting the buildings,
also the same proportionate share of the net expense of conducting
the institution, or of the amount left when receipts are deducted from
the expenditures. It is to be hoped that at some time the receipts
may exceed the expenditures. In that event we suppose the balance
will be credited pro rata to each county, though the Act is silent on
this point.
In addition every county will pay transportation, care and
maintenance of its own inmates. No inmates, nothing to pay on this
head.
It will require an expert in institutional management and in
bookkeeping to determine just what items should be charged to care
and maintenance, and to general expenses. What difference will it
make? Simply this. Some counties naturally will send a smaller
proportionate number of inmates than others. A few counties may
have but one or two inmates during the year. Each county will
receive two bills for payment. One will be for its share of overhead
expenses. The other will cover the cost of maintaining the prisoners
sent from said county. If certain charges which might be debited to
care and maintenance are charged against overhead or general
expenses, then the auditor of the county sending few or no prisoners
will justly protest a system of bookkeeping which charges to general
expenses what ought to be charged to care and maintenance.
Questions will arise quite difficult to decide, hence, there should be
some regulations adopted of universal application to the nine
institutions.
Possible Objections.
Some county officials may point with pride to their prison, perhaps
rather recently constructed, with admirable sanitary features, and
affording some opportunity for employment. What is to become of
such plants? We know of no county prison in the State whose
facilities would be equivalent to the advantages afforded by the farm.
Some prison will be needed at every county seat as a place of
detention. Portions of the real estate may sometimes be sold for a
handsome sum, or used for some other public purpose. We know of
very few county prisons for whose construction we entertain much
respect. Most of these jails need entire renovation. Some of the
newer type resemble cages for animals—a type of building we
condemn.
The latest ward constructed in the Philadelphia County Prison at
Holmesburg embodies some of the best features of modern prison
construction. We should regret to have this disused. The latest cell-
block at the Allegheny County Workhouse is a model of its kind. And
the new dining room at this institution is admirable from every point
of view. Our private suggestion is that the Trustees of the Second
District, in which five counties are comprised including Allegheny,
shall arrange to take over this Penal Farm, or the Allegheny County
Workhouse, and constitute it as the Industrial Farm for this District.
The buildings and the land are already there, and an efficient
institution conducted now on the lines enumerated in the Act
establishing these Industrial Farms. The other counties of the District
have been for some time sending their convicts to this workhouse,
paying Allegheny County a per diem rate for each prisoner sent from
their respective counties.
We wish we could devise a satisfactory scheme for the consolidation
of the counties of the First District in which Philadelphia County is
located.
Do we dare to suggest the pooling of the interests of the House of
Correction and the County Prison at Holmesburg so that the two
prisons may be combined under the same management, thus
making the Correctional Farm available for both institutions? Can
more land be secured, or reclaimed from the marshes of the
Delaware?
In the State of Indiana the general expenses and the overhead
expenses are paid by the State. The counties pay 55 cents daily
therefore for each convict sent. It is justly argued that as all
indictments charge the offender with violating the peace and dignity
of the State, the State should assume responsibility for its own
protection. In the Act now under consideration, it is provided
distinctly that the various counties of each District are to be
responsible for the expenses on some pro rata basis. The taxpayers
of the State will pay the bills whether paid by State or counties. We
believe on consideration there will be some advantage derived from
the financial policy as proposed in this bill. It will undoubtedly happen
that some farms under more expert management will tend to
become self-supporting or to reduce the overhead expense to a
small figure.
The counties of such a District will be subject to comparatively slight
taxation for the support of the prison. Information will promptly
spread to the other Districts, so that the Trustees will seek that kind
of an administrator who can show the best results. Friendly
emulation should work no evil. There is one cautionary word. Some
administrator, who has more ambition to make a good financial
showing than to adopt reformatory measures, may be tempted to
exploit the men under his charge to their detriment. A superintendent
should be chosen, not only for business ability but also to inspire the
inmates with higher ideals of life. He will get the best out of his men
by allowing certain privileges and compensation for faithful effort.
Any other sort of manager should be removed.
We have dwelt to some extent upon the possible defects of this law
which, however, has admirable features. In any achievement,
involving as many changes as are contemplated in this Act, there will
be difficulties encountered. At first we were inclined to see lions in
the way, but when we see the effect of the conversion of compulsory
idleness into productive efficiency, we may conclude that the
difficulties are not insurmountable.
We trust that some Board may soon take action and inaugurate this
work, which is one of the greatest reformatory movements known in
the penological annals of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. We
very much hope that next season may find at least one of these
institutions in actual operation.
Appointment of Trustees.
The following list shows the counties composing each district, and
the names of the Trustees so far as we have learned of their
appointment:—
First District
Philadelphia, George F. Holmes
Chester, David M. Golder
Bucks, Watson Davis
Delaware
Montgomery, Roy A. Hatfield
Second District
Allegheny
Armstrong
Lawrence
Beaver, Edwin L. Johnson
Butler
Third District
York, John D. Jenkins
Cumberland, A. E. Sieber
Northumberland, Fred. R. Dornsife
Lebanon
Adams
Perry, Allen B. Thompson
Dauphin
Lancaster
Fourth District
Washington, Thomas Hill
Fayette, Logan Rush
Indiana, W. B. Wagner
Cambria, T. Stanton Davis
Westmoreland, George W. Deeds
Greene, George Moore
Somerset, Joseph B. Miller
Clearfield, H. H. Spencer
Bedford, Thomas C. Bradley
Fifth District
Centre, Isaac Miller
Huntingdon, Josiah C. Hall
Franklin, Ross S. Gordon
Mifflin, Geo. W. Dunmire
Blair, Robert F. Bankert
Fulton
Juniata, W. A. Kinzer
Snyder, Henry Bowersox
Sixth District
Erie, Josiah F. Rogan
Mercer, A. W. Beil
Clarion. Frank McCall
Warren, E. M. Lowe
Elk, W. M. Thomas
Crawford, M. G. Beatty
Venango, Pressley H. Culbertson
Forest, J. C. Scowden
McKean, O. S. Gahagan
Jefferson, Harvey L. Grube
Seventh District
Potter
Cameron, John W. Lewis
Lycoming, Joseph H. Nicely
Montour, James Ryan
Sullivan, Charles W. Warren
Tioga, James Crawford
Clinton, James L. Kemmerer
Columbia, Charles E. Welliver
Union, William Ruhl
Eighth District
Bradford, Charles L. Crandall
Wayne, Earl Rockwell
Monroe, Thomas Shiffer
Wyoming, H. W. Place
Susquehanna, F. H. Ball
Pike, E. J. Darragh
Carbon, Thos. B. Craig
Lackawanna, John Von Bergen
Ninth District
Berks, J. Calvin Herbine
Schuylkill, B. J. Smith
Lehigh, Oscar L. Henninger
Northampton, Elmer P. Peifer
Luzerne, R. A. Beisel
Act No. 111, approved by the Governor, May 17, 1917, grants
permission to any Court or sentencing authority to dismiss any
person held for non-payment of fines and costs on condition of
agreeing to pay said charges by instalments.
In previous publications of this Society, it has been shown that the
practice in the 67 counties of the Commonwealth is far from uniform.
The law of 1836, except for first offenders, is still in force, which
prescribes that when a fine is $15.00 or less the defendant may be
detained 30 days in prison; if the fine is more than $15.00, the term
of imprisonment is 90 days. Comparatively few counties observed
this regulation. Many counties detained the prisoner as many days
as there were dollars in the fine.
Some counties have already profited by availing themselves of the
privilege of Act No. 111. In one county the sum of $2600.00 had
been collected in fines on the instalment plan in less than three
months. Formerly the county collected nothing, and in addition
maintained the prisoner who was detained in idleness. If the prisoner
thus detained could do any service to the county in the line of road-
making or other useful employment, his detention would be
considered sensible. To present him with board and lodging for a
hundred days with no employment, because he owes the county a
hundred dollars, is an absurdity.
The privilege of paying the fine and costs in instalments ought to
inure to the benefit of all parties concerned.
Act No. 337, approved by the Governor, July 17, 1917, authorizes
the employment of convicts at the county jails “at agricultural labor
on any county or almshouse farm of the county ... by the poor
authorities of such county under the direction of the warden.” Section
2 of the Act releases the warden from liability in case of the escape
of said convicts while thus employed, if due care has been
exercised.
The beauty of this Act consists in the fact that it can be immediately
put into execution. No formal meeting of Boards is necessary to
consider the matter. No expense is required for buildings and land.
This enactment is exactly in line with Act No. 359, Laws of
Pennsylvania, 1915, providing for the employment of prisoners at
road-making. The law of 1915 provides for the payment of wages to
those thus employed and forbids the wearing of stripes. We infer that
no conspicuous degrading dress is to be worn. We hope that under
the present Act, no degrading costume will be imposed upon the
workers and that some compensation shall be given.
Already the counties are reaping benefit from this recent enactment.
But with next season we believe many of the counties will avail
themselves of the opportunities afforded by this Act. Some counties
have taken immediate action. The following reports have been
received showing what has been accomplished. However, in several
of these counties the Court had previously to the passage of this
legislation granted special parole to certain prisoners in order that
they might be employed on farms. The passage of this law, however,
will make it vastly easier to place the men on farms. The machinery
of parole is sometimes a little cumbersome.
County. Employed.
Berks Ten men employed three times weekly.
Cambria A number of prisoners on farms and roads.
Delaware Fourteen men on farm.
Lehigh Twelve men paroled to farmers.
Not allowed by Court to county prisoners. City
Luzerne
prisoners work on almshouse farms.
Montgomery Six to ten men every day.
Westmoreland Twenty-five working on jail farm.
Schuylkill They have employed ten men on county farm.
Fourteen other counties are considering the proposition with intent to
begin operations in the spring of 1918.
Montgomery County pays a wage of 65 cents per day.
Berks County estimates that the prison has saved $900 the first
season.
Fayette County. Men work on roads and farms. Wages daily, 25
cents. It is estimated that the county saves many thousand dollars
annually by working the convicts on the roads.
Some further details of what has been accomplished in the way of
producing supplies for the prisons may be found in the Report of the
Wardens’ meeting at Glen Mills.
About half of the counties of the State have a prison population per
diem of fifteen or less, possibly the majority of these detained for
trial; hence, the farming proposition has little interest for them.
This law will be extremely beneficial to the prisons wherever it is
properly applied. Calculate, if you please, what the labor of ten men
on any well managed farm will produce. Nothing whatever is said in
the law as to the distribution of the produce. The crop may be
divided on some equitable basis with the poor authorities. It may all
go to the prison on some terms to be agreed upon. What cannot be
used at the time may be canned for use in the winter. We suppose in
some cases the surplus may be sold, or exchanged for other
necessities of the institution.
The law at least may be commended for brevity and for the absence
of any restraining features. Credit must be given to the State Board
of Charities for proposing and at once securing the passage of this
economic measure. The law is to be in force during the continuance
of the present war.
We trust the law will be amended so that the prisoners may be
allowed to work on land leased or donated for such purpose. There
are some large counties where there is no land available for this
laudable purpose. The bill introduced by Mr. Walker of Philadelphia
contained such a provision and also a clause explicitly stating that
the surplus of products may be sold at the best prices obtainable.
Act No. 409 provides “That the Governor is hereby duly authorized to
appoint a commission of five persons, two of whom shall be learned
in the law, and at least one of whom shall be an active official of a
correctional institution within this Commonwealth, to investigate
prison systems and the organization and management of
correctional institutions within this Commonwealth and elsewhere; to
recommend such revision of the existing prison system within this
Commonwealth, and the laws pertaining to the establishment,
maintenance and regulation of State and county correctional
institutions within this Commonwealth, as it shall deem wise, and to
report the same to the General Assembly at the session of 1919.”
Another section of the Act provides for the appropriation of the sum
of Five Thousand Dollars in order to meet the necessary expenses
of this commission, incurred in the performance of their duties.
The Commission has been appointed and has already begun the
work of investigation. Two of the members attended the sessions of
the American Prison Association at New Orleans and by interviews
with penological experts, both administrators and students, derived
valuable suggestions in regard to the special features of penal
management which should be carefully studied in other States. The
Commission aims to proceed with great caution, being aware that
what may have been successful in some States may be unsuited to
conditions in other States. While its members have authorized no
statement of its aims for publication, it may be safely stated that
there is no desire to effect a revolution in our present system, but to
modify and add to the present regulations so as to attain the highest
efficiency consistent with right and justice. The Commission is
unanimous in the belief that employment must be found for all
prisoners in the State and county prisons. There are some conflicting
elements with regard to the question of prison labor, and it will be the
aim of the Commission to devise some system of employment which
may as far as possible be helpful to the prisoner, when he is
discharged, which may teach him self-respect, and the duties and
responsibilities of citizenship, and which may reduce the
administrative expenses to a minimum, even to the extent of making
our penal institutions self-supporting. To accomplish this desirable
purpose, the law of 1913 providing for the manufacture of articles for
State-use must be greatly strengthened; and the establishment of
two or three industries for the manufacture of articles or the
production of material for State-Account must be seriously
considered. We are aware that the relations of prison labor to other
labor must be thoughtfully and considerately observed so that the
interests of all parties may be conserved. We submit that when
several thousand men are thrown out of employment or are detained
in idleness, the entire community sustains a loss. On this subject the
Commission will welcome any suggestions from officials or any
persons interested in this important matter.
The Commission is composed as follows:
Fletcher W. Stites, Chairman, Crozer Building, Philadelphia.
(Attorney and Member of the Assembly of 1917).
A. E. Jones, Attorney, Uniontown, Pa.
Mrs. Martha P. Falconer, Superintendent Girls’ House of Refuge,
Darling P. O., Pa.
Louis N. Robinson, Professor of Economics, Swarthmore College,
Pa.
Albert H. Votaw, Secretary The Pennsylvania Prison Society,
Philadelphia.
State-use System.
Capital Punishment.
The Acting Committee gave hearty support to the bill for the abolition
of Capital Punishment, and deeply regret that this relic of a
barbarous revengeful age is to be continued in this Commonwealth.
The bill passed the Senate by a handsome majority, and there was
every indication that it would pass the House with votes to spare. A
day or two before the vote was taken, there was an explosion in a
munition factory near Chester, which at first was thought to have
been caused by spies or alien enemies. Great loss of life resulted,
and the idea that such a heinous crime could not be punished by
death, if the bill should be passed, so wrought upon the minds of the
members of the Assembly that many of them changed their attitude,
casting their votes against the bill. This shocking accident was never
traced to the agency of any person or persons; however, it was felt
by many that in the event of the commission of such a crime, death
was the only adequate penalty.
Sing Sing.