The greatest difficulty in the past has been experienced by the Supervisor in getting a past history of the prisoner. That data he must have. The man's past throws light on what he is now and this in turn lights the way to forecast his future. In short, to form a judgment on whether a man is a good parole risk the Supervisor (now the Board) must know his past. The trial judges' and state's attorneys' statements are of help, but, as has been pointed out, they are often too scanty. With more funds at its disposal than formerly, the Board needs to put skilled investigators with training in sociology and social work on the job to get this information. The Committee commends this to the Board as an essential feature supplementing the other material it has at its disposal. The Board is working under a material handicap with reference to obtaining data and information, in that it cannot subpoena witnesses nor compel the production of records, papers, and documents. It should be borne in mind that great discretionary powers over the liberties of others is vested in the Board. Some of the indeterminate sentences run from one year to life and under these the Board has such wide scope to its action that it may parole the prisoner after a year's confinement, or it may keep him imprisoned during the rest of his life, or it may parole at any intermediate period. With such great responsibilities and powers, all legitimate avenues of obtaining information which might assist it in making up its judgments should be opened to it. And yet it cannot subpoena a witness or compel the production of a document, even though the testimony of a particular witness or the production of a document might be vital to the forming of an intelligent conclusion. To remedy this situation a bill was introduced at the last General Assembly proposing to amend and revise the Parole Act and among other things, to add section 91⁄2 to the Act which section proposed to give to the Board the power to issue subpoenas and sub There was no intention week. He would hold his job for two weeks and be paid. of keeping him. Now we try to check not only the sponsor and his promise of a job, but the boy's capacity to fill the job satisfactorily. "Q. Is that done by personal interview? "A. By letters and personal interviews both. "Q. By going and looking over the establishment? Yes, sir. "A. "Q. When a prisoner is paroled, is the parole agent given a history of him, his crime, his worst habits and the like? "Q. Was that done in the past? "A. "Q. "A. In a modified way, yes. Now, we give everything we know to the agent. Yes. because he can better then know how to handle the parolee if he knows all about the individual, and he would know what precautions he would have to take; whether he was a sex pervert or accidental offender. In the old days they used to give him a synopsis of the history, but none of the details." 14 It should be observed that while section 6 of the Parole Act provides that it shall be the duty of the trial judge and the state's attorney to furnish these statements, the attorney general has ruled that the admission of a prisoner to the penitentiary could not be refused on account of such statement not being furnished. 15 poenas duces tecum.1 The bill failed to pass. The committee believes that this power should be granted to the Board and recommends that a similar bill be introduced at the next session of the Legislature.16 15 The full text of section 91⁄2 as proposed was as follows: "All hearings of the Parole Board 'shall be public except when in the opinion of the Board, justice may require secrecy. The chairman and members of the Parole Board shall have the power to administer oaths, and the Board shall have power to subpoena and examine witnesses, and issue, in the same manner as in equity cases in the circuit court, subpoena duces tecum requiring the production of such books, papers, records, and documents as may be evidence of any matter properly before the Board in relation and pertinent to the granting or termination of the parole of any person, subject to its supervision, within the provisions of this Act. Service of such subpoenas shall be made by any sheriff or constable, or other person in the same manner as in cases in the Circuit Court. In case any person so served shall willfully neglect or refuse to obey any such subpoena, or to testify, the chairman may at once file a petition in the Circuit Court of the county in which such hearing is to be heard, or has been attempted to be heard, or in the Circuit or Superior Court in Cook County, setting forth the facts of such wilful refusal or neglect, and accompanying said petition with a copy of the citation, and the answer, if one has been filed, together with a copy of the subpoena and the return of service thereon, and may apply for an order of court requiring such person to attend and testify, or produce books and papers, before the Board, at a specific time and place. Any Circuit Court of the State or the Superior Court of Cook County, or any judge thereof, either in term time or vacation, upon such showing shall within proper judicial discretion order such person to appear and testify, or produce such books or papers, before the Board at a time and place to be fixed by the court or judge. If such person shall wilfully fail or refuse to obey such order of the court or judge, without lawful excuse, the court shall punish him by fine or by imprisonment in the county jail, or by both such fine and imprisonment, as the nature of the case may require and may be lawful in cases of contempt of court. Every witness attending before the Board at any hearing shall be entitled only to such compensation for his time and attendance and payment of traveling expenses as is or shall be allowed by law to witnesses attending such courts, which shall be paid by the Board if requiring on its own initiative such testimony or evidence. The Board may issue a dedimus potestatem directed to any commissioner, notary public, justice of the peace, or to any other officer authorized by law to administer oaths, to take depositions of persons whose testimony may be deemed by the Board necessary in any such hearing. Such dedimus potestatum may issue to any part of Illinois, or to any other state, or any territory of the United States or to any foreign country. The Board shall have the power to adopt reasonable rules to govern the issue of a dedimus potestatem, the taking of such depositions and the payment of all expenses thereof." 16 Fourteen trial judges answered the inquiry put to them: "You will find inclosed Senate Bill No. 375. Would you kindly read it and then give us your opinion of it? Do you approve or disapprove of it, and why?" Eight approved the bill, four were opposed, and two were indefinite in their replies. One judge wrote: "Senate Bill No. 375 would do away with the haphazard system heretofore applied if faithfully complied with and meets with my approval if we must keep on with the parole law." Opposed to this view another wrote: "I think Senate Bill No. 375 is wholly unnecessary. I disapprove of it for that reason. It appears to be intended for a basis for giving the defendant a new trial before a tribunal not a court. There is ample provision in the law as it now stands." And still another presented the following view: "Strike out the following language in lines 1 and 2 of Section 91⁄2, to-wit, 'except when in the opinion of the Board justice may require secrecy.' At the end of said Section 91⁄2 the following be added. "The state's attorney of the county from which the applicant for parole was sentenced shall be given at least ten days' notice of such hearing, and he shall be privileged to attend the same for the purpose of resisting the application, if he deems it advisable for the public good to do so. Every state's attorney attend'ing before the Board at any hearing shall be entitled to receive a warrant drawn upon the State Treasurer for an amount equal to his necessary and actual travelling expenses in going to and returning from such hearing." CHAPTER XIX LESSER PLEAS AND PLEAS. OF GUILTY AND THEIR It is a popular belief that the modern jury is responsible for a substantial part of the so-called miscarriage of justice in criminal cases. It is not within the province of the work of this Committee to discuss the responsibility of the jury other than to direct attention to the fact that a substantial portion of our criminals who are sentenced never appear before a jury at all. Penalties are inflicted frequently upon pleas of guilty. This would seem quite as it should be the guilty criminal knowing himself to be so and seeing the uselessness of further opposition throws himself upon the mercy of the court-but, as so often happens in the administration of criminal laws things are not as they seem. The fact is, there is involved in the matter of pleas of guilty one of the most astounding features in the story of crime. When the plea of guilty is found in records it is almost certain to have in the background, particularly in Cook County, a session of bargaining with the state's attorney. If the prisoner is charged with a severe crime, which for some reason or other he does not care to fight, he frequently makes overtures to the state's attorney to the effect that he will plead guilty to a lesser crime than the one charged. Thus, if the charge is murder where the punishment is death or a flat penalty anywhere from fourteen years to any number of years or life, the effort often is made to have the penalty reduced to manslaughter where the penalty runs from one to fourteen years (formerly one year to life), or to assault with intent to commit murder where the penalty is one to fourteen years. These approaches, particularly in Cook County, are frequently made through another person called a “fixer.” This sort of person is an abomination and it is a serious indictment against our system of criminal administration that such a leech not only can exist, but thrive. The "fixer" is just what the word indicates. As to qualifications, he has none, except that he may be a person of some small political influence. Overtures with the "lesser plea" are commonly employed in "gun-holdup" (robbery while armed) cases where the penalty before the meeting of the last Legislature was from ten years to life. (now one year to life). In such cases it is common to find pleas of guilty to plain robbery, where the penalty was from three to twenty years (now one to twenty years). Or the plea may be guilty of grand larceny with a penalty running from one to ten years. Finally it is not uncommon to find pleas to petit larceny in such cases where the punishment is a sentence to the workhouse or jail for a period of not to exceed one year and a fine not exceeding $100. The Committee found many cases in which the plea accepted and the punishment inflicted seemed trivial in comparison to the magnitude of the crime committed. One example is here given. The defendant, so the facts showed as 'in the statement of the trial judge and state's attorney, had held up at the point of a gun the driver of a truck load of silk valued at from $27,000 to $30,000. This crime therefore was robbery while armed, the penalty for which at the time it was committed was from ten years to life. Notwithstanding this fact a plea of guilty for petit larceny was accepted and the sentence imposed was one year, definite, and a fine of one dollar. The following is a statement of the case signed by the state's attorney, by his assistant, and concurred in and signed by the trial judge: "In re:.... Indictment No... Petit Larceny ....... "The above named defendant was sentenced to Pontiac for one year and $1.00 fine on a plea of guilty to Petit Larceny on the..........of..... by His Honor... one of the judges of the Criminal Court of Cook County. The facts in the case are as follows: . ... Chicago, who was a driver for the 1925, about 11:15 p. m. was driving a truck on Fulton St. between Paulina and Wood Sts. loaded with bales of silk. Defendant, with others, drove up alongside in an automobile and got on the running board of the truck. He intimidated with a revolver and told him to follow the automobile. After going a short distance he ordered to get off the truck and get into the automobile. They drove to 54th and Trumbull Ave., where both ....... and ... ...... were put out of the automobile and both the truck and car drove away. The truck contained about 30 bales of silk valued at $900.00 a bale. Defendant was subsequently identified and pleaded guilty as noted above. . Respectfully submitted, By (signed) State's Attorney and Assistant State's Attorneys. "I hereby concur in the above statement of facts as set forth by the State's Attorney. Several circumstances are responsible for the "lesser plea. 1 A trial judge wrote to the Committee: 991 "Some criticism has been indulged in concerning the judges by those who are ignorant of the facts when the judges have permitted prisoners to plead guilty to a lesser of several offenses which might be charged. There are generally several counts in an indictment, one charging the graver offense and others charging lesser offenses. It very often appears, when prisoners are called for trial, that either through their attorney or themselves they recognize their guilt of a lesser Its good features are that it permits of wider range of penalties within which a prisoner can be sentenced. The dividing line between grand and petit larceny is at $15. If a prisoner has stolen say $16 worth of property and this is his first offense it frequently is quite proper to permit him to plead guilty to petit larceny. In the second place, the state's attorney may have a weak 2 offense but deny guilt of the graver offense; and in some cases they even admit their guilt of the graver offense, but because of youth, or because it is the prisoner's first offense, he throws himself upon the mercy of the court and offers to plead guilty to the lesser offense rather than to stand trial for the graver offense. I have uniformly, in such cases, talked with the State's Attorney concerning the facts, and with the prisoner, and with the relatives of and witnesses for the prisoner, and thus determined whether or not, in my judgment, the ends of justice would be met by allowing the prisoner to plead to the lesser offense. I am sure this course is in the interest of justice. If every prisoner indicted in Cook County should demand a trial and insist upon that demand, our county jails would be overcrowded and more guilty prisoners would go free than is the case today. In every such case I have uniformly looked into the evidence of the State by reading the State's documents, which would show what evidence it possessed, and in many instances I have recommended the lesser plea to the prisoner, not only for the prisoner's sake, but for the sake of the State. To illustrate: The penalty for robbery with a gun is from ten years to life in the penitentiary. The penalty for robbery without a gun is from three to twenty years in the penitentiary. The law prescribes that if any one of a group of men committing a robbery has a gun, then all are guilty of robbery with a gun. The facts, however, generally show that where four or five young men commit a robbery, one, two, or three may have guns, while the others do not have guns. Some of them are stationed as lookouts, others chauffeurs, and so on. In such cases it very frequently happens that those who are not the ringleaders in such a robbery offer to plead guilty to robbery without a gun and take the lesser penalty of three to twenty years. In most instances where it is the first offense of the prisoner, I have permitted this plea to be entered and sentenced the prisoner to from three to twenty years. In my judgment, such a sentence is just as effective as the sentence of ten years to life. In this way there is no question about the conviction, as might arise before a trial by a jury, and the prisoner is sent to the penitentiary for a minimum term of three years or a maximum term of twenty years; and the Parole Board can then determine whether or not the prisoner should be released at the end of three years or should be kept for a greater period of years, even up to twelve or fourteen years. The same thing is accomplished by accepting the lesser plea as would be accomplished if conviction was had on the graver charge." 'The following question was asked by the Committee of the state's attorneys: "Please indicate justifying circumstances for the acceptance of the lesser plea. Your reasons for the practice would be greatly appreciated." There follow a number of replies which are typical of the others received: "For the past four years law violations have increased not less than 40 per cent in the more thickly populated counties, and no additional help is employed by County Boards; one man can not properly try cases, investigate witnesses, and get cases in proper shape for trial. As an illustration, in our county, we handle 400 to 500 cases a year, without an assistant State's Attorney and without any assistance in interviewing, and keeping track of witnesses, and due to dilatory motions and other unavoidable reasons, cases are prolonged, witnesses intimidated, bought, and interest lost so that when cases are brought to trial the State's Attorney has no means of knowing what results are obtainable, and as a result, in the majority of cases, is embarrassed by the fact that he has not sufficient evidence to obtain convictions." "If in larceny, the value of the property stolen barely exceeded $15.00, and the defendant had previously been of good reputation and also youthful, and it became apparent to me that he now saw the error of his ways and would not repeat the offense, I would not hesitate in recommending to the Court that the defendant be allowed to enter a plea of guilty to petit larceny and take a jail sentence instead of being thereafter disgraced as a felon." "The way I look at it, the state's attorney's job is to get people in the penitentiary, House of Correction or jail and I do not think it makes any particular difference what the crime is called that they are sent there on. In my judgment, it is the certainty of punishment and not the severity that counts, especially when this is coupled with quick action." "Considering the uncertainty of jury trials, the strict rules of evidence, the conception of many jurymen as to what constitutes 'reasonable doubt,' the possi |