CHAPTER XVII

THE DIVISION OF PARDONS AND PAROLES PRIOR TO AMENDMENT OF 1927

With the passage of the Civil Administrative Code Act in 1917 the then existing Board of Pardons was abolished1 and the "rights, powers and duties" formerly vested in it were assigned to the De partment of Public Welfare2 created by that Act. Provision was made in the Act for a Supervisor of Paroles who served under the Director of Public Welfare.*

In a prison system so complicated as it is in Illinois with its numerous prisoners whose cases fall under the provisions of the Parole Act, the Supervisor of Paroles, whose duty it became to administer paroles, had too great a burden and too heavy a responsibility placed upon him for one officer to well carry. To alleviate the situation somewhat three persons were appointed to act as assistants to him and to sit with him in the hearing of cases. These assistants were not appointed pursuant to any statutory authority, and their opinions were only advisory.

The relief given to the Supervisor through the appointment of these assistants, although materially helpful, was yet inadequate to make it possible for him to cope with the situation. It soon became apparent that he and his assistants were unable to hear enough cases to unburden the prisons of their congestion, even through the parole of such prisoners who were good parole prospects. Adequate consideration was not even given to such cases as came before them. The result was that the prisons were congested, causing serious disciplinary problems, and those who were paroled were little short of having been "guessed out" of prison. In a series of questions asked Mr. Hinton G. Clabaugh, Supervisor of Paroles, by a member of this Committee, he was asked:

"Q. As a matter of procedure, do you and other members of the board read the record? That is, all the material in the jackets," before a case is heard?

1 Smith-Hurd, Ill. Rev. St. (1925) c. 127, s. 35.

To exercise the

"The Department of Public Welfare shall have power: ...9. rights, powers and duties vested by law in the board of pardons, its secretary and other officers and employees." Smith-Hurd, op. cit., s. 53.

Smith-Hurd, op. cit., s. 3.

* Smith-Hurd, op. cit., s. 4, 5.

The jackets are the envelopes containing the data concerning the prisoners. Each prisoner has an envelope bearing the prisoner's name. In it are to be found more or less of the following: A record sheet, statements by the trial court and the state's attorney, mental health report, letters written on behalf of or against the prisoner, and statements, more or less complete, concerning the history of the prisoner and of the crime. The Committee read and digested the materials in many of these jackets.

"A.

"Q.

"A.

We do now in every instance.

What was the practice previously?6

The practice previously was to read the State's Attorney's statement and the synopsis of the case. But you can appreciate that some of the files are very voluminous. Some cases take weeks to try and there is a large record to review.

"The practice previously was supposed to be the same as it is now, they were supposed to read it all, but it is inconceivable that the organization that they had could do that.

"Q. Under the previous system how much time, on the average, did you give to each prisoner as he appeared before you to make an oral statement? Five, ten or fifteen minutes?

"A. Sometimes two or three minutes. There was not very much to consider. The prisoner would come in and he would be asked whether he was innocent or guilty. If he said he was guilty, he would be asked a few questions, and that was all. Other cases might be a little more prolonged, but very little time was given to the prisoners. They could not give much time and get through with their work."

The Committee found the material in the "jackets" in confusion. No effort had been made to file in orderly sequence and no list or inventory was kept with the "jackets" of the documents and papers they contained. All the material was merely jammed in together, and although dates were stamped on the papers, no effort was made to file in order of time. Frequently the Committee found the "jackets" tremendously bulky, filled with letters from relatives and friends, political personages, lawyers and physicians, lengthy petitions signed literally by the members of whole communities and various other items, all addressed to the Supervisor urging parole. With these there was often a sprinkling of letters opposing parole. Included also were found statements drawn by the trial judge and the state's attorney, mental health reports by the psychiatrist, and reports of hearings given the prisoner by the Supervisor and his assistants. Often it took a member of the Committee a day, sometimes two and even three days, to disentangle the mass of material in one of these jackets, to rearrange it, and to read and digest it.

Prisoners are committed to the state penitentiaries or to the state reformatory either under a fixed penalty or the indeterminate sentence. The fixed or definite penalty is imposed in four crimes, viz., misprision of treason, murder, rape, and kidnapping. In all other cases the sentence is indeterminate." The percentage of the total number of prisoners admitted to the prisons and the state reformatory on whom is imposed the indeterminate sentence varies between eighty-five and ninety per cent. The balance are given

• Meaning previous to the changes made by the 1927 Illinois General Assembly, particularly those relating to the personnel and control of the Parole Board.

7 Since some of the penalties specify minimum and maximum limits, e. g., larceny where the penalty is one to ten years, it would be more accurate to designate these "indefinite" sentences. Others are truly indeterminate, e. g., robbery while armed where the penalty runs from one year to life.

8

definite sentences. Both groups are subject to the parole law, but by far the greater part of the time of the Parole Supervisor and his assistants was consumed with the indeterminate group. Since in all indeterminate penalties a minimum time limit is set (the minimum in most cases is one year), it became the duty of the Supervisor to give a hearing to all prisoners when that period was reached. He had the power to grant parole when the minimum was served or at any intermediate time up to the maximum. Further than that he could not go; his discretion operated between those limits, but on reaching the maximum service, the prisoner was entitled to release by law."

It is obvious that wide discretionary powers resided in the Supervisor. No court ever was confronted with such a responsibility. Into his bailiwick, in fact, was poured the sentenced convict from all courts dealing with felony cases in the state. In April, 1927, when the institutions were visited by members of this Committee, there were confined in the penitentiaries at Joliet and Menard and in the reformatory at Pontiac a total of 6,316 prisoners, and if to that number we add 800 boys that were confined at St. Charles and 459 girls confined at Geneva, both of which groups were under his parole jurisdiction, this number is swelled to 7,575. The responsibility imposed on the Supervisor and the labor required of him by such numbers was too great. It was resulting, as has already been pointed out, in superficiality. bringing about a serious congestion in the prisons. Table I show the prison population on April 12, capacity of each of the institutions named.

It further was The figures in 1927, and the

In addition to those mentioned is the Illinois Women's Prison at Joliet which in April, 1927, had confined in it 76 women prison

8 S. 801, c. 38 Smith-Hurd Statutes (1927) contains the following language relating to crimes for which a definite penalty is prescribed:

"Persons sentenced for life may be eligible to parole at the end of twenty years; persons not sentenced for life but sentenced for a definite term of years shall not be eligible to parole until he or she shall have served the minimum sentence provided by law for the crime of which he or she was convicted, good time being allowed as provided by law; nor until he or she shall have served at least one-third of the time fixed in said definite sentence."

Where the penalty is from one year to life, there, of course, is no maximum on the reaching of which the prisoner is legally entitled to release.

Under the law as changed by the 1927 General Assembly a Board exercises the functions formerly performed by the Supervisor.

ers.

others.

This prison has 100 cells and seemed less crowded than the

At the time the men's prisons at Joliet were being visited by members of the Committee, the Old Prison had but 215 prisoners who were occupying cells to themselves, the New Prison had 213. The other 2,448 prisoners were paired, two in a cell. It is unwise to place more than one prisoner in a cell. It is difficult to estimate the bad and lasting influence an older criminal may have upon a younger one who is locked with him in the intimate contact of a small cell. That this is a serious problem there is no doubt. But even more so are the obnoxious resulting evils of sex perversion which are common in our prisons. Sanitation also is a problem. The Committee found this to be particularly so at Menard where the housing question was even more acute. It was found there that it had become necessary to erect as many as 100 temporary cells in the cell house, each of which was occupied by two prisoners. Ninety-six cells actually had three prisoners crowded into each of them. At Pontiac the Committee found that 240 new cells had recently been installed, each of which was filled, two to a cell. Forty-one boys were crowded into a vacant room over the captain's office and 55 cells each were occupied by three persons.

At Joliet a member of this Committee and an assistant went over the active file of all the male prisoners then in the prisons at Joliet. Each of the cases was discussed more or less at length with prison officials whose contact with the prisoners had been close. Frequently in the course of the work a prisoner was called before them and questioned. Particular attention was given to the cases of such inmates, who, because of their long period of imprisonment, seemed entitled to hearing before the Supervisor, or who, because of the slightness of their participation in the crime for which they had been convicted, coupled with good prison behavior, seemed good parole risks. Similar studies were made at Menard and at Pontiac. It is the conviction of this Committee that, at the time these studies were made, from one-fourth to one-third of the prisoners in the penitentiaries and in the reformatory were at least worthy of serious consideration for parole.

One member of this Committee visited all of the institutions. He began his investigations with the belief that paroles were granted all too frequently. He now is of the opinion, shared also by the other members of the Committee, that it was not the frequency of parole that brought criticism, so much as the lack of a careful sifting and a choosing of parole prospects, together with a lack of careful supervision after parole.

In the spring of 1927 affairs had reached a stage that it was urgent that the cases of all persons confined be reviewed. It is the belief of this Committee that many worthy cases were being overlooked and that the prisons harbored literally hundreds of prison

ers who were good parole prospects, and who with reasonable supervision were safe risks in society. Here was a delicate problem calling for painstaking study and the careful weighing of facts, and one for which the machinery of the law had made inadequate provision. It is the Committee's belief that herein we find the most conspicuous cause for congestion in our prisons.

LEGISLATIVE CHANGES IN 1927

The bad situation relative to paroles particularly in its reflexes upon the prisons and its effects upon the public mind had become in the spring of 1927 a matter of serious concern. It was a realization of this situation that caused Honorable Hinton G. Clabaugh, the Supervisor of Paroles, to launch a vigorous program before the General Assembly. He contended, among other things, that too much power and responsibility was vested by the law in one manthe Supervisor. To remedy this he proposed a Parole Board consisting of a chairman and twelve other members appointed by the Governor with the consent of the Senate; he urged that the State must appropriate more liberally for parole administration and he proposed giving the Board the power to require attendance of witnesses at its hearings by subpoena. In all of these matters Mr. Clabaugh had the expressed support of this Committee.

The General Assembly responded by passing these measures, except the power to subpoena, the bill for which failed to pass the House, substantially as Mr. Clabaugh had proposed them.10 In the matter of granting paroles which had heretofore been vested in the Department of Public Welfare the General Assembly by a legis. lative act approved in July, 1927, provided for a Parole Board to consist of the Supervisor of Paroles, who was made chairman of the Board, and nine other members.11 A new section, 54a, was added to the Civil Administrative Code, reading as follows:12

"The parole board created by this Act shall exercise and discharge all the rights, powers and duties heretofore vested in the Department of Public Welfare in granting paroles to persons sentenced or committed for crime or offenses, but the supervision and aftercare of persons so paroled shall remain in the Department of Public Welfare. The action of a majority of all the members of the board shall be the action of the board and no parole shall be granted except upon the concurrence of a majority of all of the members of the parole board, such concurrence to be recited in the records of the board. In consideration of any parole said board shall consider and give weight to the record of the prisoner's conduct kept by the superintendent or warden."

It will be observed that under this Act the supervision and after-care of persons paroled remains in the Department of Public

10 The appropriation for parole administration was increased approximately from $350,000 for the biennium to $1,466,200. Laws of Illinois (1927) 135, 141, 398, 400. 11 Laws of Illinois (1927) 846. The salary of the Supervisor was fixed by statute at $7,000 per annum and the salaries of the nine members of the board at $5,000 13 Laws of Illinois (1927) 850.

each.