“The present Warden at Sing Sing has so far as we know no particular experience in prison matters. He has however, made many improvements in the short time he has been there. We are perfectly willing to suspend judgment until he has had a further chance to prove what he can do. We must add, however, that there is much room for improvement and particularly in the industries.”
Mr. Solomon said that the suggestions of Thomas Mott Osborne, arising from his personal experience in Auburn Prison, had afforded valuable hints.
Some Reasons For Massachusetts Pardons.—The Governor and Council in Massachusetts granted 69 pardons in 1913. One man, sentenced to 18 months for polygamy, had had papers served on him back in 1902 for divorce, had been introduced to a man represented to be his divorced wife’s second husband and, supposing himself to be a single man, had married a Lawrence woman in 1911. Another, an 18-year-old sailor-boy, sentenced for assault and battery, had had no counsel at his trial. Another sentenced for second-degree murder, was at most, according to this statement, guilty only of manslaughter for striking a fatal blow at a huge negro in fear of repetition of revolting treatment. He had pleaded guilty to the greater charge on advice of counsel.
Among a long list of cases, somewhat similar in the showing made, is a curious one of a man released on condition that he go to the Long Island hospital and submit to an operation for the transfusion of blood to his mother, who it was believed could be cured in this way and would otherwise die.
Such a report lends strength to the plan Prison Commissioner Randall is urging before the legislature for an indeterminate sentence system, says the Worcester Post. It is a question on which much can be said pro and con, though the most advanced penologists are pretty well agreed as to its advantages when wisely administered. Indiana and Minnesota have found that it works with even unexpected success. Mr. Randall, in the recent hearing on his bill, urged that it
“Would relieve the courts from fixing the maximum and minimum of those committed to state prison, which was right, for the court’s duty is simply to find whether a man is guilty and it does not study his personality to any extent. The question of when a prisoner shall be released should be left to the parole board rather than to the court.”
As a practical consideration, also, it would relieve the Governor and council from work which now absorbs much of their time and energy. A competent parole board would specialize in the study of convicts and their needs and thus add to knowledge that is needed in our modern life and the duty to make it better by every means within our reach.
The Virginia Penitentiary.—According to the annual report of the State penitentiary board to the governor, the big prison not only made expenses last year, but earned a net profit of $20,412.31. Its operating expenses were $115,098.88 and its receipts $135,511.10. Of the total earnings $130,573 came from the hiring of the men on the contract system in the penitentiary shops. Defending itself from the charge of overworking the prisoners for the benefit of the contract holders, the board calls attention to the fact that the 800 prisoners released during the year ending September 31, were paid the sum of $10,575.85, which represents their earnings during imprisonment.