The mirror. (Stillwater, Minn.) 1894-1925, 1913-07-31
COMMISSION PLAN
FOR PRISONERS
The Following Address was Delivered at
the Annual Meeting Of the American
Institute Of Criminal Law, in 1912, by
Frank [. Randall, formerly Superlnten-
dent of the Minnesota RefOrmatoTy.

fIdIk l. nduudIIy IVIW0iy V"P""
dent Of the Minnesota ReformatoTy.
am sure that there are many men In
this presence who have sat upon the oench
and pronounced sentences, who would nave
been clad to have told the unfortunates,
that. for their correction and welfare, as
we'll as for the interests OF society, they
would be committed to the custody OF
commission of experienced and thoughtful
men. who would so order the matter that
such necessary detention as they were to
undergo, would be in the place or places
best suited to their needs and capabilities,
where they would have ample opportunity
to improve themselves in every proper re-
gard, and every incentive to avail them
selves of their opportunity; and that as soon
as, and not before, they should make an at
firmative showing emitting them to partial
liberty on parole, they should have it, and
go out to honorable employment.
If there is trial Judge or ex-judge IN at
tendance upon these sessions, who feels sat
isfied with the procedure under which he
has acted, prior to the coming in OF the IN
determinate sentence law, it is my hope
that he will not fail to express himself to
that effect at an opportune time, before we
return to our homes. This is not chal-
lenge. but request. Heretofore in distin-
guished assemblages, but perhaps none more
distinguished than this, no apologist has
declared himself, though many have ques-
toned the wisdom or feasibility of the
substitute procedure already referred to.
The Judges and lawyers are experts in
determining an accomplished fact. No
other persons are equally skillful in that
regard. The work therefore of determin-
ing whether or not an unlawful act, invol-
wing serious moral turpitude, has been COM
mitted, and, if so, by whom, must most
necessarily be left to the courts, and the
courts officers, as it always has been.
When the commission of the wrong, and
identity of the wrongdoer have been es-
tablished, nothing should remain for the
court to do, but to commit the defendant
to the custody of a commission, charged
with full responsibility for his care and Gus
tody, until his final release from the juris-
diction of the state. One exception should
be here noted, based on the fact that i'm
prisonment is an artificial and abnormal
condition, and that, per Sc, 1t is not good.
1t should be resorted to and is justified on
ly when necessary and to be preferred to
the continued liberty of the delinquent.
Therefore, when an application is made
for probationary liberty before commit
ment, the court should hear and cautiously
determine the matter, but when determi-
nation has been reached adverse to the ap-
plicant, the work of the judiciary should
be closed, with the passing of the defend
ant into the custody of the commission.
Under this system the defense of insanity
would not be heard in court, nor the fact
of mental responsibility. Such matters
would be quite immaterial at the trial and
would be considered at later date by pub
lie servants, charged with peculiar and
continuing duty and responsibility in that
connection and equipped with all facilities
for deliberately determining the subject S
condition. The fact that the crime had
been committed by him and that it was
necessary to the interests of the public that
he be restrained of his liberty, to the end
that he could not repeat his wrongs, would
be as far as the court would 60 with him.
Whether man is dangerous because he
is insane, or intoxicated, or whether being
sane and sober, he is dangerous because he
is vicious, makes him an equally undesir-
able man to be at liberty and equally calls
for his restraint; the only difference being
in the place to which he should be COM
mitted, and the treatment that should be
given him. The penal institutions should
be for the care and treatment of acute
cases only, while custodial asylum should
be for the chronic offenders, who have
demonstrated their incapacity or vicious
ness, or their corrupting influence, and fol-
those in whose future no prospect of good
citizenship can be discerned. That there