Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1918-12-04

the actual time he was to serve, largely
on recommendation of the parole Off
Ger. The prisoner was often brought
before the board time after time with
ont being given any intimation whether
he was to serve two or ten or fifteen
years. Nothing can be more demeral-
lizing to the individual prisoner than
such uncertainty. Under tsueh law, the
parole board or cunning parole ofTi-
Ger has more power in this respec.
than all the courts of the state com
brned. A recent amendment, permit
ting courts to fix a definite maximum
and definite. minimum within certain
limits only partly remedies the evil. In
case of some repeaters, the court was
authorized to give flat or as,snfte
sentence.
| "To illustrate the impropriety Of =
parole board assuming the duties of a
circuit judge, cases are noted whcrs
men with small minimum and 'compara-
lively small offenses are serving un-
usually long terms. In one instance e
coming to the attention of the Jury,
1.-Two men convicted of the same crime
were sentenced by the same court. Orc
had been previously convicted and was
given a flat sentence that was consld-
erablv longer than the minimum, Tho
loiher was given an indeterminate SEN
tenee, as he was considered the lessor
of the two criminals. However, as il
worked out before the parole board
the man who was q previous offender
3lgot out at the expiration of his sen
ltencc while the other man who was a
first offender was kept there by the
parole board considerably longer than
the repeater.
Curtail Parole Board Powers.
"is q remedy we recommend legisla'
| ton directing 'r.al Judges t., fix an
intelligent minimum and an intelli'
IHcent maximum anywhere within tho
minimum and maximum established by
law and directing further that the pris
oncr be entitled TO parole as attel
of law, if his prison conduct is good al
! the expiration of his minimum. Suef
ia law would eliminate most Of the ac
n tivities of the parole board and place
I the matter in the hands of the circuit
! Judge who tried the case. In sucl
!, evont provision should be made that re
Ipcaters who had not fully disclosed al
previous convictions Of crime may cith
: or be resentenced by the court or have
ltheir minimum Ill I'd by the pdi3ls
i board. This Fov.spn is necessary fo'
che reason that frequently sufficient
| orp ,rtliG:ty for a ccalparison OF Bef
} tillion and other identification record
J does not exist prior to sentencing !
\ criminal. 1t should also be provides
that tho prisoner could shorten ais min
: i.num by a definite scale Of gool con
. duct time, as experience hase provel
. this to be great inducment towars
: encouraging good conduct at the peni
: Ittniiary.
'It has come to the knowledge o.
this grand jury that several mon OF
Lurole have become married prior y
: their final discharge. 1t is contende'
from legal standpoint that there J
. serious question in regard to the vafid
( ity Of such marriages. Ii such is tn
nease, innocent children may dscove
Il in the future thatEthcy are ii.cgitimat
: nj other Rardshibb might resait there
Q from. 1t is recommended that lcgisla
+ tiou be enacted either perlniti,ng Q
: prohibiting these marriages 50 as 7