The mirror. (Stillwater, Minn.) 1894-1925, 1898-12-22
Written for The Prison Mirror.
REFORMED?

Within the past few years outside
interest and effort in behalf of prison
ers has made remarkable progress.
Many organizations have been formed,
among which l particularize to men,
tion the Howard Association and the
Board of Corrections and Charities.
At their meetings many phases of
the subject are discussed and consid-
cred, especially pertaining to reforma-
tion, and employment on discharge.
But yet 1 have failed to notice in any
published record of their proceedings
a sign of effort to secure, under this
praisewOrthy theory, justice-that is:
On prisoner showing ample evidence
of reformation, and intention of pur-
suing an honest course henceforth, his
discharge-conditIonal or absolute, re-
gardless of actual term to which SEN
fenced.
Evidently, in the opinion of these
philanthropic organizations, justice is
bestowed upon the unfortunate the
moment the judge passes sentence.
Yet they sway to extent of approving
the creation of a Board of Pardons,
and Parole Board. To overcome
presumed difficulties the indetermi-
nate sentence is proposed.
The indeterminate sentence plan
may appear nice on paper. 1t has its
good point? But God have mercy on
the poor wretch who has no outside
influence, or close friends to assist him!
Suffice to compare the Board of Par
dons. Also take note of the mental
strain. The effect towards insanity. Is
this not to be considered? Size up the
men yourself, and the men with
careworn and despondent appearance
[ believe you will almost infallibly find
to be the inmates on the reformatory
plan. Their answer to the question
BY all means give me the fixed sen.
tence!
l have always approved the funda.
mental principle of law, viz: "On IN
TENTION primarily base punishment"
tempered however by modern reform
principles that is, to the extent of
refOrmatiOn-nOt vindication. Law
records significantly state: no person
shall be punished for a crime except
after being regularly passed upon by
tho in6inio1 frih Vnt k1o
indeterminate plan not only would the
victim be punished under the regular
charge but also for other charges to
which his defense was not called for.
Now what was the primary idea in
giving fixed sentence; of allowing pa
roles, and of granting pardon or COM
mutation? Why are not these made
to cover all the points of argument?
Why propose to subject an unfortu-
nate to the whim and kingly power of
one Board-without limitation, and
from which there can be no appeal
The only contention that would be diff
ficult of being embraced therein is that
of (as under the indeterminate plan)
enforcing additional punishment on
the victim for crimes or prejudices
without due hearing-all in the name
of justice. Under present laws, SEN
tence can always be made sufficiently
severe to fit the particular crime, be-
sides give the officers sufficient latitude
to reform if not also deform the most
vicious.
The urgent purpose that is at present
not accomplished, is the release of the
prisoner on reformation. But here the
fault does not rest with statutory pro-
visions, nor with the Parole Board, but
with the Pardon Board. AS long as
the Pardon Board hesitates or practic-
ally refuses to entertain the petition of
an unfortunate who did plead guilty
at the trial, though he may have had a
meritorious purpose in so doing; as
long as they uphold vindictiveness, re-
gardless of his previous record or
character, and the present evidence of
reform; as long as the notion that par
don or Communication places the trial