The second item on the program was a bill providing for medical inspection by the state board of health of all penal institutions, and for thorough examination of all prisoners, at the times of committal and discharge, not only with reference to their present physical and mental condition, but also with reference to their personal and family history as to mental capacity and delinquency. This measure was felt to be important, aside from its immediate advantage in institutional administration, in two respects: (1) It would undoubtedly bring about some changes in classifying and treating offenders; and (2) the careful recording of the results of the examinations would probably in the course of years build up a mass of data from which it would be possible to draw inferences as to methods of preventing delinquency. This bill was not put into presentable shape until so late in the session that it failed of favorable consideration. The chief opposition came from those who believed that the cost of careful medical examinations in county institutions would be such as materially to raise the budget for the hospital departments. On the contrary, the warden of the state prison testified that the result of such examinations as have been voluntarily adopted by him has been a lessening in the expenses of the hospital department. The centralization of minor offenders in a state reformatory will facilitate the adoption of this needed reform.
Similarly it will probably be easier to get a system of probation for adult offenders if there is a state reformatory. The Prisoners’ Aid Association pressed a probation bill two years ago and failed. This year the measure was held in abeyance so as to give the more fundamental bill the right of way. A state penal board has for many years been desired by many. This too, would logically follow state control of minor offenders. So the Association feels that the first battle has been won in the wider campaign. The next battle, and the decisive one, if we win it, will be that concerning the actual establishment of the state reformatory.
E. L. P.
A GREAT BRITAIN PLAN
Mr. Winston Churchill’s attempt to lighten the load which every discharged convict has as a handicap in his efforts to retrieve his position will be watched with much interest in all Anglo-Saxon countries. A new commission is to be organized, with the financial and moral backing of the government, for the purpose of uniting and directing the efforts of all societies which have as their common purpose the opening of opportunities for legitimate activity to men who have made a mistake and paid the penalty for it. The Home Secretary is to be at its head and, while its scope has not yet been and possibly never will be definitely delimited, it will make possible the abolition of police supervision which has been one of the almost insuperable obstacles in the path of every ex-prisoner who tried to live down his past in Great Britain. Police officers, as a rule, are too actively engaged in the militant work of fighting crime to be able to share in the task of rehabilitating the vanquished. We have not, in Canada, the problems in this connection which Great Britain has to solve but we have enough reasons for fearing that they will come with our rapid development to make our interest in the new movement more than an impersonal one.—Montreal (Que.) Star.
THE PAROLE SYSTEM AS IT WORKS
Joseph T. Byers, now the Secretary of the New Jersey State Charities Aid and Prison Reform Association, developed, while he was superintendent of the New York House of Refuge, the parole system of that institution to a high degree. In his final report to the board of managers of the House of Refuge he said:
“The most important work of the institution is that of our parole department. It has been a source of great gratification to me, as I am sure it has been also to the board, to note the development and success of this work. Convinced that short parole periods of supervision were unwise, our work was organized on a basis of supervision that should last as long as the law permitted, namely, during minority. To those who would criticise this period as being excessive and likely to work hardship to the boys, to make them restive and intolerant, I can only say that close observation during the past five years does not warrant any such statement. The monthly reports of the boys have been made, as a rule, very promptly and satisfactorily. They have not shown any great desire to be released from parole supervision; and I present as further evidence of the fact that our parole supervision has been properly adjusted, the more than fifteen hundred visits made to me during the past twelve months by paroled boys. Three-quarters of these visits were purely voluntary on the part of the boys. The credit for this condition of affairs is largely due to the parole officers. They have been tactful, sympathetic, resourceful and in every way deserving of the full confidence I have had in their integrity and efficiency.