The Review, Vol. 1, No. 7, July 1911

by Various

ORGANIZATION OF SYSTEMS OF PROBATION AND PAROLE

CHARLES A. DE COWRCY

Judge of the Superior Court, Massachusetts

The two essentials of success in probation work are:—judges who have an intelligent and sympathetic interest in the problem, and probation officers fitted by temperament and training to secure the best possible results.

To further define these essentials, we need judges who will not discredit the system by extending probation to persons not likely to profit by it, and who will apply it wherever it can be done with due regard to the protection of the community, and where the past history and present disposition of the person investigated indicate that he may reasonably be expected to reform without punishment. And we need probation officers who possess not only sympathy and zeal, but knowledge of human nature, tact, firmness and patience.

How shall we secure such judges and officers? The active friends of probation can influence public opinion in the election or appointment of persons able and willing to consider probation on its merits. It is such a human problem that it is difficult to conceive of a man otherwise fitted for judicial position who will not apply probation with intelligent sympathy when its possibilities are called to his attention.

But much can be done to secure uniform standards and improved methods by conferences among the judges, and between them and the probation commission of the State. These conferences also enable those judges who have a whole-souled interest in the work to enkindle the enthusiasm of their associates. This is all the more important in the states where the judges appoint the probation officers.

How to secure suitable probation officers is the most important problem in the probation system. In states where judges are appointed for life, as in Massachusetts, the method of appointment by the judge under whom the officer acts has worked well. But even here are found some judges, happily few in number, who persist in retaining officers little adapted for the work. Where judges persist in such conduct, after being shown its blighting effect on probation work in their district, it is usually because the judge himself takes no interest in probation. To prevent such injustice, no appointment of a probation officer by a judge should be effective until the state probation commission, after proper examination, certifies that the candidate is qualified properly to perform the duties of the office.

The New York system of a civil service examination, specially adapted for probation duties, has much to recommend it. Whatever the method of selection, no person should be appointed who does not secure the approval of the state board; and the board might well be given power of removal, after a hearing, upon written charges.

In the organization of a system of probation an essential element is a central state board. As probation is a part of the judicial system, I favor the Massachusetts method of having the members of the board appointed by the chief justice of the superior or trial court. And if a majority of its members are judges, the efforts of the board are most likely to secure the co-operation of the judges throughout the state.

The state board should have power to prescribe forms of records and reports, to suggest uniform and efficient methods of work by the officers, and promote co-ordination among them; and, in general, it should have ample authority to supervise the probation work throughout the state. Where this central board has also authority in the matter of appointments and removals above mentioned, the organization of the probation system seems complete. In order to maintain a high standard of probation work, the executive officer of the state board should periodically investigate the work of every probation officer; and there should be frequent conferences of the judges and of the probation officers conducted by members of the state board.

As to the organization of a parole system—for the present the machinery of the probation system might well be utilized for this work. The vital point in parole work is the appointment of a suitable board to determine to whom and when parole shall be granted, and on what terms. This question is closely associated with the indeterminate sentence and state control of prisons. I have not had sufficient experience with parole problems to make specific recommendations.

We should agree upon the meaning of our terms. Probation and parole are often used synonymously, while, in fact, authorities and prison officials recognize a distinction. Probation applies to one conditionally released after conviction but before entering upon his sentence. Parole is understood to be the conditional release of a prisoner from an institution after the serving of sentence has been begun.

In Indiana the law authorizes the board of trustees acting as a parole board, or the Governor, to release on parole persons who have been confined under commitment in five institutions: the State Prison, the Reformatory, the Woman’s Prison, Girls’ School and Boys’ School; to all of these, sentences are in effect indeterminate except for murder or treason. Prisoners so released are under supervision and accurate records are kept.

The Indiana probation law applies in three different ways, respectively, to felons, to misdemeanors, to juvenile delinquents. A person who is convicted of a felony is sentenced to a state prison or a reformatory. Sentence may be suspended and he be released on probation. The committal is sent to the institution to which he is committed and he is placed under the supervision of the agents of that institution exactly the same as if he were paroled therefrom.

If the offense is a misdemeanor, the court may suspend judgment and release the offender upon such terms and conditions as in his judgment and discretion seem right and proper. The prisoner is placed under the supervision of the probation officer authorized in each county by the juvenile court law or under the oversight of some other probation officer designated by the court. In either case the law makes proper provision for such subsequent action by the court as the behavior of the convicted person merits.

The juvenile court law provides for a juvenile court in every county in the state. There is a special juvenile court in Marion County, containing the city of Indianapolis. In all other counties the judge of the circuit court is ex-officio the judge of the juvenile court. Provision is made for the appointment of at least one paid probation officer in every county and for such volunteer officers as will agree to perform the service without pay.

Juvenile delinquents may be released by the court upon probation and placed under the care of these officers. They make reports to the Board of State Charities. They should understand thoroughly that their work should properly be divided into three phases: (1) before the trial; (2) at the trial; (3) after the trial. The first contemplates a complete investigation of the child’s history. It should include everything that can be learned of it and its surroundings. The second involves presenting to the court all learned facts together with the conclusions and recommendations of the officer. The third contemplates complete supervision of the child after it is released upon probation. It is not necessary to state that in all this the best interests of the child alone should determine the action to be taken. What has been worked out in one place and another as to the best methods and practice in the case of children is being applied to adults who are subjects for probation. Our experience is now great enough to enable us to say that many men and women offenders can be reclaimed to useful lives without imprisonment, by correct probationary treatment.