CHAPTER XXXI SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS AND OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS The Committee on the Workings of the System of the Indeterminate-Sentence and Parole Law in Illinois took as its problem the finding of facts and the making of recommendations upon two central questions, namely: 1. Should the indeterminate sentence and parole in Illinois be abandoned, or continued? 2. If the indeterminate sentence and parole were abandoned, what substitute should be recommended; if continued, what recommendations for improvement should be made? For over a year the Committee has been actively engaged in studying the system of the indeterminate sentence and parole in its many aspects and in its many interrelationships with the functions of the courts, the police, the penal and reformatory institutions, with the political system and with public opinion. It was deemed necessary to make a study of the history of punishment and parole in Illinois, in order to see the present situation in its proper perspective. An intensive study was made of unselected parole records with the many documents, often voluminous, which they contain. The five chief penal and reformatory institutions of the State, the Illinois State Penitentiary at Joliet, the Southern Illinois Penitentiary at Menard, the Illinois State Reformatory at Pontiac, the School for Boys at St. Charles, the Training School for Girls at Geneva, and the organization and administration of these institutions were carefully studied with reference to their function in "the rehabilitation of the criminal" as set forth in the statutes. An extensive study of three thousand cases of men paroled for more than two and a half years from Joliet, Menard, and Pontiac was completed for the purpose of determining, if possible, what are the factors which make for the observance or violation of parole. In addition, a small number of life histories of men released for some time from parole was obtained in order to discover their attitude toward the present administration of the indeterminate sentence and parole. A comparison was also made of the policies and practice of parole with the policies and practice of probation with special reference to Cook County and Chicago. A study of the acceptance of pleas of guilt to lesser offenses than the crime committed or charged in the indictment was also made because of its practical effect upon the work of the Parole Board. The facts from these studies have already been fully presented in Parts I-IV of this report. There remains only the necessity of presenting a summary of these facts and of the recommendations which flow from these findings. I. SHOULD THE INDETERMIN ABANDONED OR CONTINUED ? 1. The Committee found that there is a widespread misunderstanding and misinformation in the general public about the history, purposes, operation, and results of the indeterminate sentence and parole in Illinois. 2. It seems to be a popular assumption that parole is an arbitrary and unconditional release from prison of a criminal into the community. The Committee finds that parole arose as a redefinition by legislative action of the Governor's power of pardon and commutation of sentence, and differs from a pardon in being a conditional release under supervision for a certain period after leaving the penal or reformatory institution. It must always be remembered that all acts of the Parole Board are legally subject to the pardoning power of the Governor. Actually, however, since the introduction of parole, the number of pardons has declined until in the year ending June 30, 1926, only eight pardons were granted. 3. Many persons believe that the only justification of parole lies in humanitarian feelings and principles, but the Committee finds that the strongest argument for the indeterminate sentence and parole consists in the protection for society it affords, not only through the opportunity for reformation of the criminal under supervision, but through its use as an instrument to return the parole violator to the penitentiary without the delays and technicalities of court procedure. 4. It is widely believed that with the introduction of the parole system, the period of incarceration in the penal and reformatory institutions has decreased. The facts are directly opposite. Under the system of parole since 1897, the period of incarceration in the Illinois State Penitentiary at Joliet has increased from 1.9 to 2.6 years; in the Southern Illinois Penitentiary at Menard from 2.0 to 2.4 years; in the Illinois State Reformatory at Pontiac from 1.5 to 2.1 years. This proves that the actual time served by the criminal in penitentiaries and reformatories is longer under sentences fixed by the Parole Board than when flat sentences were fixed by the courts. 5. The critics of parole would substitute longer sentences for the parole system. There might be unexpected difficulty in securing this result, since it was found that the sentence actually served is longer under the parole system. But if the average time served were increased one year, this would require the immediate construction of new penitentiaries and reformatories, and an addition to the present expenditure for maintenance of approximately $1,000,000 to $1,500, 000. Which is the more desirable, the addition of an average of one year to the time served even if that could be obtained, or careful supervision for five years after release from the institutions, as now required by the Parole Board? 6. The general opinion seems to be that the Parole Board is to be held responsible for the failure of any and every paroled man to make good. The Committee finds that while the Parole Board should bear its part of this responsibility, that others are also responsible under the statutes, namely, the trial judge and the prosecuting attorney for reports upon the circumstances of the offense and the character of the convict, and the penal and reformatory institutions for the preparation in industrial training and personal development afforded inmates. 7. The Committee finds that there is a general distrust on the part of the public of the freedom of the Parole Board from political influence. The Committee finds that any such general belief on the part of the public or among the paroled men themselves is detrimental to the best workings of the Parole Board. RECOMMENDATIONS In view of these findings from the study of the history of punishment and parole the Committee recommends: 1. That the system of indeterminate sentence and parole be continued in Illinois. 2. That the parole system be accorded the freedom from political influence similar to that generally granted the public schools and our great state universities in the United States. II. THE WORKINGS OF THE PAROLE BOARD AND ITS RELATION TO THE COURT 1. The Committee finds that prior to the amendment of 1927 to the Civil Administrative Code Act of 1917 the placing of the sole power of administering paroles upon the Supervisor of Paroles was too great a burden of responsibility, and that he was provided with inadequate assistance and funds to cope with the situation of over 7,500 men, women, boys, and girls in the two penitentiaries, reformatory, and the two training schools under his parole jurisdiction. The cases coming before the Parole Board were too numerous (1,531 in 1926) to receive sufficient consideration. The staff of officers supervising men on parole was too small to give the degree of oversight contemplated by the statutes. As a consequence, a large number of persons, estimated by the Committee at from one-fourth to one-third of the inmates of the penitentiaries and reformatory, remained in these institutions whose cases demanded immediate serious consideration for parole. 2. The legislative changes of 1927 proposed by the Honorable Hinton G. Clabaugh, the Supervisor of Paroles, were designed to deal with this emergency. The measures enacted into law made provision for establishment of the Parole Board with nine members in addition to its chairman, the granting of the power of parole previously held by the Supervisor of Paroles to this Board, and a greatly increased appropriation for parole administration. The measure proposing to give the Board the power to require attendance of witnesses at its hearings by subpoena passed in the Senate but failed in the House. Other important measures sponsored by Mr. Clabaugh were enacted into law.1 The penalty of ten years to life for the crime of hold-up with a gun was changed to one year to life since experience demonstrated that it was found to be almost impossible to secure convictions in jury trials under the heavier sentence. The penalty for plain robbery, of three to twenty years, was changed to one year to twenty years; the penalty for night-time burglary of five to twenty years was strengthened to one to life; the penalty for plain burglary of one year to twenty years was repealed and that of one year to life substituted; the penalty of manslaughter that had been one year to life. became one year to fourteen.1 The penalty for aiding prisoners to escape was strengthened to the point that those who aid or abet shall be given the same penalty as the person aided or abetted; except that, in the case of a prisoner sentenced to death, the penalty for aid or abetment shall be imprisonment for life in the penitentiary. At Mr. Clabaugh's suggestion a special statute was also enacted providing that in the case of poor persons, upon proper pauper showing, appeal may be taken to the Supreme Court at the expense of the county and State. This remarkable legislative achievement will have advantageous results not only upon parole administration but the entire administration of criminal justice, and deserves the gratitude of the people of Illinois.1 3. Under its present administration the Parole Board of nine full-time members beside the chairman are divided into three subcommittees which sit three days out of each week at the different institutions in order to secure all facts for or against parole on every case coming up for action. The Board meets once a month to review the work of the sub-committee and to act upon it. 4. The Committee finds the present administration has strengthened the term of parole supervision by extending it from one year to five years with the requirement that the paroled men report to the supervisor of paroles, monthly during the first year; bi-monthly during the second year; every three months during the third and fourth years; semi-annually the fifth year; and annually thereafter unless finally discharged after a hearing by the Parole Board. 5. The work of the new Parole Board in the short period of its existence merits the indorsement of the Committee by its grasp of the 1 Laws of Illinois (1927) 398-400. |