The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1929-09-17

Editor Times-In your paper of
Sept. II, notice an editorial re-
ferring to the criminal history of
one Harry Foster. In one para
graph you say, 1T will interest those
who believe that prisons can curb
crime and cure criminals to know
that out of his brief twenty-five
years of life he has spent eleven
Of them behind the bars"
You take this one case as an
example for all. You speak as
though that once a man has erred
he never can be reclaimed, which is
very inhuman, narrow-m minded
and un-C Christian attitude. I notice
that your paper takes this stand
consistently.
You fight paroles and pardons,
and your paper uses its influence to
prejudice a public against the parol-
ing of a prisoner, even after he has
served the minimum sentence and
is eligible to parole as prescribed by
law. Your paper does this, whether
it is the prisoners first or second
offense.
According to your belief, once a
man has committed crime he
should be in prison for life, and
never given chance to make good
and live down his past.
You try to clinch your argument
by referring to the Harry Foster
case, which is no argument at all.
His case is that of a professional
criminal, and not that of one who
once yielded to temptation, or who
through dire necessity committed
one offense against the majesty of
the law.
One of your staff writers harps
on the detention forever of all law
breakers. Has he never broken the
law in any way? He has a good
position, home, car and all the
good things of life. Place him in the
position of man I once knew, who
was without food and a place to
sleep for days, and committed a
petty theft to maintain life.
now am writing story of facts
dealing with the man both outside
and inside the law.
Now, you claim your paper is fear
less, so I ask you to publish this
letter, and give the public chance
to debate on my argument and
yours.
JACK GRAY,
2130 Brookside, Indianapolis.
Editor Tines-May T take this OPP
portunity to express my Thinks"
to officers Amsden and Ross of Sub
station No. 4, for recent investi-
cation which they conducted"
1t is the "deplorable" story of two
9-year-old boys. For nearly two
years I have taught my boys not
to fight. Today I told him to fight
back and fight according to the
other boys tactics. First, he used
his fist; the other boy threw rocks;
so did my boy, only my boy was an
expert markSman. I am sorry the
other child must carry a. black eye
our little underweight boy has
done so many times, because I
wouldn't let him fight back, only l
never called on the lack of efficiency
of the police to settle such matters.
I took my boy to the doctor, paid
the bill, considered the source and
called it a day.
Then today these two officers
came to my home to Investigate "
Refused to hear both sides of the
story, refused to look at my boys
new blouse which had been torn of,
refused to go to my boys school and
look up the record of both boys, and
also refused to take the matter to
court. I asked them to arrest me-
or take my boy to the detention
home-I knew the situation, they
didn't.
They called me about everything
but lady-had been a man I GER
tainly would have insisted that both
of these loyal representatives of the
police department remove their
coats, also badges, and would gladly
have done a little investigating my
self.
My child has the advantages of a
real home. He has a wonderful
school record, father who sets an
excellent example for his boy; in
fact, he is just about as well sit