The two essentials of success in probation work are:—judges who have an intelligent and sympathetic interest in the problem, and probation officers fitted by temperament and training to secure the best possible results.
To further define these essentials, we need judges who will not discredit the system by extending probation to persons not likely to profit by it, and who will apply it wherever it can be done with due regard to the protection of the community, and where the past history and present disposition of the person investigated indicate that he may reasonably be expected to reform without punishment. And we need probation officers who possess not only sympathy and zeal, but knowledge of human nature, tact, firmness and patience.
How shall we secure such judges and officers? The active friends of probation can influence public opinion in the election or appointment of persons able and willing to consider probation on its merits. It is such a human problem that it is difficult to conceive of a man otherwise fitted for judicial position who will not apply probation with intelligent sympathy when its possibilities are called to his attention.
But much can be done to secure uniform standards and improved methods by conferences among the judges, and between them and the probation commission of the State. These conferences also enable those judges who have a whole-souled interest in the work to enkindle the enthusiasm of their associates. This is all the more important in the states where the judges appoint the probation officers.
How to secure suitable probation officers is the most important problem in the probation system. In states where judges are appointed for life, as in Massachusetts, the method of appointment by the judge under whom the officer acts has worked well. But even here are found some judges, happily few in number, who persist in retaining officers little adapted for the work. Where judges persist in such conduct, after being shown its blighting effect on probation work in their district, it is usually because the judge himself takes no interest in probation. To prevent such injustice, no appointment of a probation officer by a judge should be effective until the state probation commission, after proper examination, certifies that the candidate is qualified properly to perform the duties of the office.
The New York system of a civil service examination, specially adapted for probation duties, has much to recommend it. Whatever the method of selection, no person should be appointed who does not secure the approval of the state board; and the board might well be given power of removal, after a hearing, upon written charges.
In the organization of a system of probation an essential element is a central state board. As probation is a part of the judicial system, I favor the Massachusetts method of having the members of the board appointed by the chief justice of the superior or trial court. And if a majority of its members are judges, the efforts of the board are most likely to secure the co-operation of the judges throughout the state.
The state board should have power to prescribe forms of records and reports, to suggest uniform and efficient methods of work by the officers, and promote co-ordination among them; and, in general, it should have ample authority to supervise the probation work throughout the state. Where this central board has also authority in the matter of appointments and removals above mentioned, the organization of the probation system seems complete. In order to maintain a high standard of probation work, the executive officer of the state board should periodically investigate the work of every probation officer; and there should be frequent conferences of the judges and of the probation officers conducted by members of the state board.
As to the organization of a parole system—for the present the machinery of the probation system might well be utilized for this work. The vital point in parole work is the appointment of a suitable board to determine to whom and when parole shall be granted, and on what terms. This question is closely associated with the indeterminate sentence and state control of prisons. I have not had sufficient experience with parole problems to make specific recommendations.
We should agree upon the meaning of our terms. Probation and parole are often used synonymously, while, in fact, authorities and prison officials recognize a distinction. Probation applies to one conditionally released after conviction but before entering upon his sentence. Parole is understood to be the conditional release of a prisoner from an institution after the serving of sentence has been begun.