Less than six per cent. of the entire number have vanished. It must not be considered that all of these have committed crime. Doubtless many of them have been in the trenches. They have broken connection with the parole officials in order to serve Uncle Sam, who has stated that he will not accept those who have been guilty of felony. From outside sources, we have known that a large number of former convicts have thus endeavored to expiate their former offenses. Much praise has been given to ex-convicts in Canada and Great Britain from which countries many were released in order to join the army or navy. In fact very few of these absconders are supposed to have again committed crime. Nearly every penal institution of the country receives notice of these decampers accompanied by their photographs, so they are easily identified. The few who again committed some crime have thus been detected and either returned whence they came or held with detainers. Probably nearly all of them desire to get entirely away from any restraint or semblance of authority. They make a grievous mistake for they are liable at any time to be apprehended and to be brought back in disgrace. They live the life of hunted animals. Never for one hour can they feel secure. We believe that a penalty should be levied upon those who abuse the privilege of parole. They have violated their word of honor, and should serve additional time.
There are some persons who will argue against the granting of parole because some eight and one-half per cent. of these obtaining this privilege have again been guilty of violations of law and order. Nearly all these violations are of the nature of misdemeanors. Comparatively few have been guilty of felonies. The problem involves a deep study of human psychology. In order to determine who shall be released, there are many elements to be considered. Mistakes are made both within and outside the prison walls. Those on the inside often give the applicant the benefit of their doubts when the logic of the case seems to urge further detention. When the man is on the outside he is often disappointed in the attitude of the community of which he really desires to become a law-abiding citizen. The members of the community assume a serious responsibility when they put stumbling-blocks in the way of the man who is endeavoring to make good. “Woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.”
But the conclusion is irresistible that an argument against release on parole, based on the fact that about eight per cent. have again become lawbreakers, is a stronger argument against release at expiration of sentence.
For a much larger percentage than eight per cent. of those who are released because their terms have expired and therefore can not longer be detained, become recidivists. Often one-half of the prisoners at a penal institution have served previously, and yet a comparatively small percentage are parole violators. In other words, the same argument which is used against release on parole will apply more strongly to any release whatever. Again, it must be remembered that the paroled man or woman is under watchful care, while the person absolutely released is subject to no restraint.
Out of every 100 persons reported January 1, 1919, as being on parole, 74 were making good. Of the remaining 26, barely two have committed felonies. This record is better than Boards in some other States have reported. Our Parole Officials are giving deep study to this subject with a view to increasing the percentage of successful effort.
A. H. V.