Probation has been defined as a judicial system, under which an offender against penal law, instead of being imprisoned, is given an opportunity to reform himself under supervision and subject to conditions imposed by the court, to the end that if he makes good no penalty will be imposed.
The enactment of a law by the legislature of Indiana in 1907, under which courts may exercise the right to suspend sentence or withhold judgment in the case of adults, made possible the application of the probation system in the administration of justice in circuit and criminal courts and courts having concurrent jurisdiction.
The probation method of dealing with minor offenders in our State was an attempt to follow the spirit of the constitutional provision that “the penal code shall be founded on the principles of reformation and not of vindictive justice.”
The aim of the City Court of Indianapolis during my term of four years was to administer justice tempered with humanity. The welfare of unfortunates, and the saving of women and children from hunger and want, was to the court a matter of greater moment than the piling up of a vast amount of fines and costs. If the efficiency of the court was to be determined by the number of dollars and cents, wrested from offenders, then the constitutional provision above referred to should be rewritten and the law of 1907 repealed. Such a step, however, would be to turn back the dial of human progress one hundred years. So long as the constitution and the laws of the State permit, the people will demand that justice shall be administered upon human lines.
In order that the best possible results might be obtained both for society and the individual, the probation system as established in the City Court of Indianapolis contemplated the following:
1. The suspended sentence.
The power to suspend sentence where the circumstances seemed to justify has saved many novices in crime from undergoing the harsh punishment that would otherwise be meted out to them, and that seems to be contrary to the constitutional provision that “all penalties shall be proportioned according to the nature of the offense.” As has been well said: “The system under which a father and husband pleading guilty to a charge of larceny, based upon the taking of a bundle of oats or a loaf of bread, was sent up, was often sure to work brutal injustice. That it continued as long as it did is a remarkable fact.”
During my term I suspended judgment in 700 cases and withheld judgment in 7559. Of this latter class less than 3 per cent. were returned for a second or subsequent offense.
While there is no provision under the law for the employment of paid probation officers, adequate supervision in 575 cases was made possible by good citizens, volunteering to serve in that capacity. These probationers were required to furnish the court a monthly report signed by the probation officer. Time will not permit the details of these reports. Each tells its own story of heroic efforts toward right living.