The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1914-04-03

SnOulQ society sacrifice the DrOtec-
ton II finds in the present personal
and sole responsibility OF the COVER
nor?
While theoretically the responsible
1ty for pardon will remain with the
governor yet the practical result of
this division or responsibility will be,
in the case OF a complaisant executive,
tendency to deprive the people Of
two of the greatest securities they
possess for the proper performance
81 delegated power In the first
place, the restraint OF public opinion
is weakened in the popular confusion
as to which, among four should bear
the consequences OF a wrongful par
don. And, secondly, ease and precis-
lon are lost in the ascertainment OF
which official is culpably responsible
for pardon inimical to the public
welfare
One of the reasons for reposing in
the governor the power to pardon Ii
thus succinctly expressed in The
Federalist:
TT Is not to be doubted that a
single man OF prudence and good
sense Is better fitted, In delicate con
lectures, to balance the motives
which may plead for and against the
remission Of the punishment than any
numerous body whatever"
II Is evident that the bill creating
an Advisory Board OF Parole is not
in accord with the spirit OF our State
Constitution. The Commission has
prepared bill to amend the Consti-
tuition 50 as to authorize the General
Assembly to adopt any form OF the
principles of the suspension of SEN
tence, of the indeterminate sentence,
and OF the release upon parole. fhis
bill has the approval Of the Commits
sion. If this amendment to the Con-
stitution be adopted, law can then
be passed which will not be open to
objections, which are apart from the
merits OF the theory OF the indeter-
inmate sentence. The objections to
the bill now before the General As
sembly may be repeated. They are
that the bill is of doubtful constitu-
tional sanction; that il depends up
on the personal favor or the executive
to become effective, and that it con
fers to an unwarranted extent arbi-
trary powers of dangerous nature.
The Indetermfnate Sentence,
Under the indeterminate sentence
| 1t is intended, either by restraints or
refOrmations, that prisoners once
committed to our prisons shall then
and thereafter be permanently with
drawn from the ranks Of offenders"
Il. r. Brockway, Correction and
Prevention, Russell Sage Foundation.
| No one can quarrel with such a
high and noble aim, but the practical
question remains: Can this intention
be made effective through the indie
terminate sentence? "a rule, which,
in speculation, may seem the most
advantageous to society, may yet be
found, in practice, totally pernicious
and destructive. "-Hume's Enquiries.
| Arguments and facts are urged
either way, numerous authorities are
on one side or the other, but the value
of the testimony in favor of the in
determinate sentence is seriously
impaired BY the great variety in form
of the indeterminate sentence laws,
and by the absence Of trustworthy
and adequate statistics The theo-
retical indeterminate sentence is one
where a convict Is sentenced to con-
finement until he is reformed and
made a suitable member OF society
but this theoretical view is rejected
in legislation. The actual indetermin-
ate sentence as exemplifled in twenty
two states in which it has been adopt
! ed is not the theoretical or indefinite
sentence, but is a medley of twenty
two different varieties. With this
discord in legislation, with no diminu-
ton OF crime in the States In which
! it is in force, and with no reliable sta
tistics to support it pretensions, the
value of an indeterminate sentence in
prison reform Is clearly not closed
question.
An Indeterminate Sentence Com
mission consisting OF w. w. Willough-
by, of Johns Hopkins University,
Henry J. Ford, then Of Johns Hopkins
University and now OF Princeton Uni
Iversity, John r. Stone, Leigh Bonsal
and John f. Weyler, OF Baltimore
City, was appointed by Governor
Warfield under the Act of 1906, CHI.
563, TO make an examination OF the
working and practical results OF laws
providing for indeterminate sentences
in criminal cases." This Commission
made a thorough study of the subject,
and its conclusion was stated in the
report to Governor Crothers in 1908:
The Commission does not recon-
mend the adoption of the indetermin-
ate sentence system, because it be-
lieves that the best results for Mary
land may be obtained by action OF a
less radical nature"
The argument for definite sen
tence is compactly put by Simon E.
Baldwin, Governor of Connecticut,
after more than ten years experience
in his State with an indeterminate
sentence law:
The convict then knows the worst
that is before him. He can lay his
plans with assurance as to his en-
ployment after his discharge. He has
received such a sentence as has ap-
proved itself to the magistrate or
jury before whom his trial took place
and who presumably have the best
means OF determining the degree of
his guilt, the nature Of his temptation,
and all circumstances Of extenuation.
The sovereign whose laws he has
violated has received such satlsfac-
ton as was deemed sufficient, no
greater and no less The individuals
whom he may have wronged have an
opportunity to compare his term Of
confinement with the measure Of his
guilt. The sense of public justice in
the community at large is offended
and every rogue, On the contrary, is
encouraged, If punishment be not
adequate and certain"
All this approved public policy is
to be cast aside for a twenty-third
variety OF the indeterminate sentence.
After the Judge has sentenced the