The state herald., 1891-08-07
PUNlsHlsia DRuNkARos.
A New Departure by Massachusetts,
Inv Makers.

Mr.. j. S. Appel in the Denver Re-
publican calls attention to new and rad
ical change In the laws of Massachusetts
relating to the punishment OF drunkards,
He says:
"rhe framing Of the new law to modify
some Of the evils OF the present system
was undertaken. Under the old system
the gin-mill taxed the man for the privi-
lego Of making him drunk, and thon the
court fined tho man because he was not
sober. His pocket was usually empty, SO
he was sent to prison because he could
not pay his fino. When tho fine was paid
the cost Of it caine out Of the earnings of
his hard working wife. Tho fine on tho
person was thus, in most cases, q tine on
the family. 1t was system which
neither prevented drunkenness nor OBJECT
ed tho reform Of the drunkard.
"The now law abolishes the fine as n
penalty for drunkenness, and substitutes
Imprisonment In all cases. 1t gives the
court power to discriminate between diff
ferent individuals. Under the old system
there was little or no discrimination. The
the alternative Imprisonment for thirty
days. In the analysis and exposition OF
the new law, MIR. Spalding, secretary OF
the Massachusetts Prison Association.
points out the fallacy OF tho idea that tho
imprisonment was in any way equivalent
for the fine. Certainly, it was not SO TO
the state, and not SO to the man. The
evils Of tho fine system In other respects
are likewise indicated.
"There may be cases where the direct
Imposition of fine, II sufficiently heavy,
Is the best way Of protecting society ard
Furnishing those who disturb its order.
But there Is danger Of abuse when tho
fine is either nominal, so that 1t really
constitutes no punish ment, where 1t Is so
heavy as to be oppressive, or where the
Imprisonment is made the alternative. II
becomes decided discrimination between
rich and poor. As MIR Spalding truly
says, Hereafter when IA person is impris
oned It will be because tho court thinks q
certain term Of Imprisonment is needed or
deserved, and not because he is too poor
TO pay the fine. Drunkenness, and not
poverty will be the offence for which he is
Imprisoned
"Attention is further called to the enor-
nous expense of the fine system. Other
features Of the law are the large disore.
tion 1t gives courts, and the provision
which is made for the careful examination
Of those arrested for this ofTense. This is
certainly one of the best features of the
new law. A great danger in penal admin
lstration 10 that the courts get TO working
like SO many machines. The supply of
through the courts in a perfunctory way.
In hundreds OF cases the best way to do
may be TO send the man home. This lib
erty has been exercised by the police But
the temptation TO bribery and corruption
Is apparent when the arresting officer is
allowed to make the release. The new
law vests this power in the officer in
charge Of the station, not In tho officer
making the arrest 1t requires record
In each case where person is released.
The right to release is limited to those
who declare that they have not been ar
rested twice before within year for
drunkenness.
Doubtful cases will 20 to the courts.
The statement which forms the basis for
release must be investigated afterward by
the probation officer. II the otlicer in
charge of the station declines TO make the
release, tho person may appeal TO the
courts. The judge then has the adv antage
Of the investigation made by the probation
officer. He may bo discharged with or
without trial, may be placed on proba.
ton, or may be committed as an habituai
drunkard II Lc II found TO be such.