The journal of prison discipline and philanthropy (New series, No. 57), March, 1918

by Pennsylvania Prison Society

We admit some friction in getting the various public institutions in any State to agree to purchase prison-made articles, yet in those States where such system has been in use for some years, there is little tendency to take a backward step. Unless there is a provision that public institutions shall, whenever practicable, procure their supplies from the Prison Labor Commission, little progress can be made. Everybody agrees that prisoners ought to be put to work, and that it is a shame to detain them in utter idleness, but when it comes to using the products of their industry, there is reluctance and a feeling that the other fellow may use such goods.

We are glad to report that the Prison Labor Commission of Pennsylvania has made a beginning, yet up to this time the output is far below the capacity of the available workers. At the Huntingdon Reformatory, the license tags for automobiles to the number of one million are being made, a decidedly economical arrangement for the State. Brushes, mops and brooms are made at the Western Penitentiary and at the Eastern Penitentiary a shoe factory has been initiated, and also knit goods are made in this institution. We believe that a business of a million dollars yearly may be built up in this State with prison-made goods, and in order to make this worth while, the State should make ample provision for the administration of this proposition. No State has been successful in establishing the State-Use system which did not make it obligatory upon the public institutions to patronize the industries established by the State. It goes without saying that the quality of the goods or articles made in these penal institutions must be satisfactory.

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.

The Indeterminate Sentence.

A law for the imposition of a maximum and a minimum term of imprisonment on convicts sent to the penitentiaries of the State was passed in 1909. It was provided that the minimum should not exceed one-fourth the maximum sentence.

In 1911 the law was amended to apply to convicts of the State when sent to the penitentiary or to the county jail. It was further amended by striking out the one-fourth provision and vesting the authority to determine the maximum and minimum entirely in the Court, except that the maximum was not to be greater than the law for any particular offence may prescribe. The Court has power by this law to make the minimum sentence any time at all to within one day of the maximum. A convict whose offence by statute may be punished by an imprisonment of twenty years could have a minimum sentence fixed at any time from one day to nineteen years, eleven months and twenty-nine days. There were four prisoners at the Eastern Penitentiary at the time the last report was made whose maximum was twenty years and whose minimum was the same lacking one day. There were thirty-eight prisoners sentenced to a maximum of twenty years whose minimum was eighteen years or more. According to the old law of commutation for good behavior, every one of these prisoners would have been entitled to freedom on good behavior at the end of twelve years and three months. This law of commutation for satisfactory conduct had been in vogue for fifty years and we have not learned that the judiciary of the State had issued any remonstrance. The number according to the last report whose maximum was twenty years was 86. These under old law of commutation might be released in 12 years, 3 months. Of these 86, under present law, 55 will remain longer than under commutation. And under present law, 31 may be released earlier than under commutation. It is the inequality of sentences which has produced dissatisfaction. We have confidence in the judiciary of the Commonwealth, but we know that they differ in regard to time of expiation. How could it be otherwise? It might be supposed that judges might welcome an opportunity to place the responsibility of determining the time of release, or of ascertaining when a convict is ready to resume the duties of citizenship, upon some judicious body of men or women chosen with regard to their special fitness for such a responsible task.

The Assembly was convinced of the righteousness of the plea for an indeterminate sentence which might more closely correspond with its title than the law as amended in 1911, hence the members of the Assembly by a solid majority amended the law of 1911 so that any convict who had served one-third of the maximum sentence as prescribed by the Court should be eligible for parole. Mark that the law explicitly states that such convicts are eligible for parole, not that they shall be paroled. The time when they should be paroled, if paroled under any event, is decided by the Parole Board. Granted that we have a judicious Parole Board, who can better decide when a man is entitled to liberty, the judge or the jury who note the crime and see the man at the time of his trial, or the men who are supposed not only to know the circumstances of the crime but also to become familiar with the man’s attitude and general character? In this country freedom is man’s birthright, and if by some error or mischance he loses that liberty, it should be restored to him as soon as he shows that he can safely be trusted with it, and that he appreciates its value.

But notwithstanding the favorable vote of both Houses of the Assembly, Governor Brumbaugh was not convinced of the correctness of the principle involved and so interposed a veto. With all due deference to the Chief Magistrate of this Commonwealth, we honestly differ with him in regard to this particular matter. The veto message was quite brief, the fear being expressed that some guilty of second degree murder, altho the circumstances might readily indicate a malicious murder of the first degree, might under the proposed act regain their freedom in something less than seven years. The statute provides a sentence of twenty years for murder of the second degree, but under the operation of the proposed amendment the guilty person would be liable for parole at the end of six years and eight months.