Chicago eagle. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1889-19??, 1896-12-26
CRIMINAL REFORM.
Experimcnts which May Solve the
vexsd Question.

Experiments which May Solve the
Vexsd Question.
In few respects has 80 much progress
been made during the present century
as In the treatment Of criminals. At
the close Of the last century, American
criminal codes, which were modelled
upon that Of England, were harsh In
the extreme. The death penalty was
affixed to q long list Of crimes, many Of
them Of the most trivial character.
So late as 1926, In the District Of
Columbia. there were thirty offenses
punishable by death. For stealing from
Il warehouse to the value OF five shil.
lings. a man might be hanged. Seu'
tences Of imprisonment were pronounc.
ed with corresponding frequency. ana
the overcrowded prisons Of the country
were In shocking condition. Convict.
cd murderers, boys sentenced for petty
larceny. poor debtors. and men detained
as witnesses were all hcrded together.
In New York. In 1910, scores Of con-
victs We're pardoned out In order to
make room tor new offenders. In $50
more than eleven hundred poor debtOrs
were imprisoned In New York, no one
OF whom owed as much as twenty dol
lars. As neither State nor city made
any provision for their maintenance,
they might have starved to death, had
not the Humane Society fed them. In
Boston, from 1870 to 1892, more than
three thousand poor debtors were iui-
prisOned.
The criminal legislation Of our own
day contrasts strlkingly with that Of
the past, not only In Its details ana lts
methods. but In Its spirit. The need Of
classification and gradatiOn, Of careful
adjustment Of the penalty to the crime
II felt.
The Idea OF retaliation IL losing Its
prominence. The belief that its own
protection Is the real end for society 10
seek, and that to reform the criminal,
II possible. Is the best way Of attaining
this, Is gaining ground. 1t IL recOg.
nized that there are two extremes 10
he avoided. Undue leniency, indeed.
rObs the penalty of Its deterrent force.
But, on the other hand, undue severity
hardens the offender, and leaves rank
ling In his mind a sense of injustice ana
Il desire for revenge that may make him
more dangerous to the community
when he IL let out Of prison than he
was when he was put In.
Two recent experiments In criminal
reform are illustrative ana significant.
They are akin In purpose. though they
seem to be widely different. One Is the
Habltual Criminals Act, adopted In
Massac achusetts ana several other StateS.
under which man who has received
two sentences to the State prison, upon
conviction for third Offense which
calls for State prison sentence, Is pro-
nounced an habitual criminal. ana is
sentenced for twenty-five years. what
ever might have been the penalty Ordi.
narily attaching to his Offense.
The other Is what Is known as the In
determinate sentence, which has been
tried In some form In Massachusetts,
New York, Ohio, Illinois ana Pennsyl-
vania with good results. Uuder this
plan, either the sentence IN n general
one to Imprisonment, or the Judge, In
prOnOuncing sentence, fixes minimum
term.
The prisoner must be confined for tl,a
shorter time, and may be confined 70,
the longer; but II his conduct cOnvinces
the prison authorities that he IL truly
reformed, he may be released by specia
permit at any time between the two
terms. Violation of the conditions OF
his permit or Of any law of the Stat,
requires his arrest and confinement iOl
the unexpired portion of the maximum
term.
Even the habitual criminal, though
he Is apparently treated as incOrrigible
Is not without hope, for reform In his
case may lead to his release before the