SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OF PENAL INSTITUTIONS 343
notorious criminals very soon after they were fairly tried, con- victed and sentenced to just penalties.
Mr. C. H. Reeve, of Indiana, cites this example:
A man convicted of a most atrocious murder [sentenced for twenty-one years] is running about here now, a most vicious and dangerous character, who is on parole, who was in prison hardly long enough to acquire the smell of the prison on him paroled under the indeterminate sentence. The parole is most shamefully abused now, and tends to bring the law and its judgments into contempt.
Treatment of these objections. There is not space here to weigh all these arguments against the indeterminate sentence. We are considering only the relation of the indeterminate-sentence law to central administration. There are many other aspects which we must omit to consider.
Now, the best answer to objections to a wise method is such an improvement in the method itself or in its practical applica- tion as to remove all reasonable grounds of criticism. Is there any known way out of these difficulties? The following recom- mendations have been made: Dr. S. J. Barrows writes:
The boards of managers of the separate institutions are perhaps in a better position to become familiar with individual cases in their respective institutions than a general board ; but under a proper marking system the prisoner can demonstrate his fitness for conditional release in most cases.
Instead of giving the trial judge a hearing, I think it would be well to have the judiciary represented in some way in the composition of the boards of parole. It seems desirable that in paroling a prisoner the prison superin- tendent, the physician, and the trial judge, or some one representing judicial authority, should be represented.
Mr. W. G. Pettigrove, chairman of prison commissioners of Massachusetts, writes:
A more even administration of the parole system can be obtained if a single board administers it with respect to all prisons than could be possible if releases were granted by separate boards of management.
Mr. Z. R. Brockway writes on this point:
The proper scope and limit of the courts, in criminal trials, is to determine whether the public welfare requires imprisonment. Having adjudged and ordered imprisonment, there his function and his responsibility should cease. All the proceedings afterwards can best be directed by another tribunal the controlling board or authority by whatever name. The place or places
