TABLE XIV PROBATION RESULTS OF BOYS DISCHARGED FROM THE BOYS' COURT (MUNICIPAL COURT OF CHICAGO) DURING THE PERIOD FROM OCTOBER 1, 1921, TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1926, ACCORDING TO JUDGES WHO GRANTED THE PROBATION Judges Satis- Doubt- Unsatis- H. of Pen. or factory ful Pontiac Dead Total 2 factory C. 13 84 25 8 1 200 17 128 33 14 2 We now turn to comments received from judges in various parts of the State. The inquiry was made of them, "About what proportion of the persons on probation are apprehended violating probation or committing new crimes?" To this a down-state judge replied: "20 per cent. In other words, my experience for the past five years indicates that 80 per cent of probationers make good." Another thought, "about one in four." Still another placed it at 25 per cent. One, possibly more pessimistic, wrote, it is "impossible to state, but it is a very great per cent." Another replied, "I am advised that more than 80 per cent of the prisoners placed on probation profit by the experience and that less than 10 per cent are apprehended violating probation." Finally one judge wrote that in his jurisdiction "not over 3 per cent" violated. A similar inquiry was addressed to various state's attorneys. One replied "about 20 per cent in this locality" violate. Another gave his opinion, "in this county about 25 per cent should be" apprehended for violations. One state's attorney wrote that in his jurisdiction "about one-half of those on probation violate." The impression of another was that "many persons violate the probation and are apprehended violating other laws." The general comment from prosecuting officers in down-state counties bespoke the success of probation. One wrote "less than 10 per cent" violate. The estimate of another was that "less than 15 per cent of our probationers have not made good." Another placed the proportion of unsatisfactory cases at 5 per cent. One wrote that in his county there had been only "two or three violations in nearly seven years." Another found that about 3 per cent violated in his county, and one wrote "in my county the per cent has been small because of the strict requirements necessary to be shown before probation is granted." SUMMARY AND FINDINGS ON PROBATION 1. The Committee was impressed by the wide approval given to the principle of probation by the judges and prosecuting officers of the state. Since those officers have been in positions to observe intimately the operation of the system-its defects as well as its strong features their testimony particularly is pertinent. 2. Probation is employed as a method of release of offenders on good behavior The Committee found that the jurisdictions of the state vary greatly in the application of this principle. In one jurisdiction practically every offender who was able to qualify under the law was given probation, and in another sixty-six and two-thirds per cent were admitted to it. On the other hand, the percentage in some jurisdictions was negligible. It is exceedingly difficult to obtain accurate statistics on the number of offenders admitted to probation due to the fact that some jurisdictions have not kept readily available records. In Cook County approximately 25 per cent are granted probation. 3. The Committee gave attention to the prevalence of probation in Cook County and found that over a period of years from 1922 to 1927 a total of 2,633 offenders were admitted to probation from the Criminal Court, and 23,189 from the Municipal Court, making a total of 25,822 for both courts. For the same period but 2,205 were paroled to Cook County from the penitentiaries and reformatory.. 4. The Committee believes that a thorough investigation of the antecedents of an offender before probation is essential to good administration. Consonant with this the Probation Act provides, "before granting any request for admission to probation, the Court shall require the probation officer to investigate accurately and promptly the case of the defendant making such request." Notwithstanding, it was found that this feature is being commonly disregarded by the courts. This is true in Cook County particularly, where, according to the report of the chief probation officer, during the course of one year, 4,986 offenders were admitted to probation without preliminary investigation, and but 476 were investigated. 5. There is some evidence that political influences enter into the consideration of probation, but, on the whole, there seems to be little of that. The Committee discovered, however, that political considerations, at times, weigh heavily in the matter of employing and discharging probation officers. The inference is strong that such considerations were uppermost when the municipal judges of Cook County met recently and acted to discharge thirteen probation officers. 6. The statute bars from probation those offenders who have committed murder, manslaughter, rape, kidnapping, willful and corrupt perjury or subornation of perjury, arson, larceny and embezzlement, where the amount taken or converted exceeds two hundred dollars ($200) in value, incest, burglary of an inhabited dwelling house, conspiracy and acts made an offense under the election laws. The Committee found that instances were not uncommon in which the courts had granted probation in offenses excepted by the statute. It found, also, that the records frequently showed that the courts had accepted pleas of guilty to lesser offenses when the crimes charged were among those offenses excepted by the statute. The Committee cannot know what prompted the courts in accepting "lesser pleas." The inference is strong, however, that these pleas were taken to bring the offenders within the benefits of the Probation Act. 7. Supervision is of the essence of probation. The kind of supervision that is given depends upon the personnel of the officers and upon the sufficiency of the force employed. The Committee found here again great variance among the jurisdictions of the state. Some made no provision for supervision, others had some individual employed who gave part time to the work, and still others had the work well in hand with a full-time officer in charge or, in some of the more populous jurisdictions, with a force at work. In general, with some marked exceptions, the personnel of the supervising force was not high. Want of careful discrimination in the selection of officers and inadequate salaries were responsible. 8. The Committee found considerable variance in the counties of the state in the results obtained from probation. It is very difficult even to approximate satisfactory conclusions on this point. Many factors enter in, which are difficult to measure. In some jurisdictions it was claimed that the probation violations were negligible, in others it was frankly admitted that they were heavy. Naturally that would be true, for the success of the system depends on the careful sifting of probation risks and upon the kind of supervision given. And that, as we have already seen, varies greatly over the state. 9. The Probation Act gives wide discretionary powers to the courts. The courts may grant probation. Since this is discretionary, and with little by way of standards to go by, probation is common in some jurisdictions and not in others. The court may appoint probation officers, and, again, since this is discretionary, there are to be found probation officers in some jurisdictions and none in others. This, in fact, has resulted in such lack of uniformity in the various jurisdictions of the State that the Committee has found it very difficult to arrive at any satisfactory conclusions. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON PROBATION 1. The Committee believes that probation is correct in principle and that there should be no thought of abandoning it. 2. Investigation before probation is vital, and any practices to the contrary must be condemned. 3. The granting of probation in violation of the express provisions of the statute must be condemned. Further, while the acceptance of pleas to lesser offenses than charged is at times justifiable, such practice if commonly employed to bring offenders within the Probation Act must be condemned. 4. Supervision should be given to probation in all jurisdictions where there are probationers. No community should seek to avoid that responsibility. Further, the supervising personnel must be improved. This can be done only if the appointing and discharging features are taken out of politics. The tenure of the officers should be made secure and higher salaries should be paid. 5. The Committee recommends that careful consideration be given by the Legislature to a reform of the conditions of the granting of probation in order to correct existing abuses. The Committee is of the opinion that the best interests of the people of Illinois will be protected by the following distribution of functions: the interpretation of the law should be made by the judge, the determination of facts by the jury, upon conviction the sentence fixed in accordance with the statutory provisions, but with the right of application in any case by either the court or the jury to the Parole Board for recommendation as to the merit of probation. If the recommendation of the Parole Board is favorable the court in his judgment may grant probation. In order to unify and to standardize the work of probation and parole administration, the supervision of persons on probation should be placed under the control of the Division of Parole Supervision. |