Evening star., 1934-10-14

1ONrl hOl "a AluldAd'
TINE criminal law has been con-
cerned traditionally with fit-
ting punishment to the crime.
l. Modern penology has to do
with finding ways of fitting
punishment to the criminal. 1t even
goes beyond that. 1t discards the idea
of punishment as much as possible
and places the emphasis on treat
ment. The criminal is socially mall
adjusted individual, and the purpose
of society, as stated in some of our
State constitutions, is to reform him.
But the words punishment" and Ere
form" smack of a theological age
which has passed. Consequently it
has been necessary to adopt terms
which are consistent with a scientific
conception of crime and the criminal,
such as re-education or readjustment.
The criminal is one who has de-
veloped reSentments toward society
through some unfortunate experience,
who has failed to realize the mutual
relations in society or who is psyche
logically incapable of making nor
NAL adjustment. The courts and the
penal system should try to re-educate
such a person in order that he may
make a satisfactory adjustment In
society.
But modern penology is not even
seriously regarded in many quarters,
and it is often deemed impossible of
attainment among those who accept
it as a reasonable theory. Fortunately,
1t has been tried out in enough places
to prove its practicability. The best
of our juvenile courts have shown
what can be accomplished with the
young offender when he is thought of
as a subject for treatment. A few
penal institutions in the country have
been transformed into institutions for
treatment which have had marked
success. These demonstrations of the
effectiveness of modern penology JUS
tify its adoption throughout the
country.
The practical problems in the re-
organization of the machinery Of JUS
tice and penal institutions are tre-
mendous They have not been at
tackled wholeheartedly and intelli-
gently.
HaphaZard Sentencing.
One of the things which hampers
treatment of the convicted offender
most is the haphazard method of SEN
fencing. First offenders are often
given sentences much more severe
than repeated offenders, for the same
offense. This was what happened in
the case of Dillinger His associate
in the crime which first sent him to
prison had served a previous sentence,
but the associate received a rather
mild indeterminate sentence, while
Dillinger was given a fiat 10-year
term. There is no question whatever
that this obvious injustice had much
to do with the bitterness which Dill
linger developed and which made him
for a time the No. l public enemy.
A mistake by court probably made
Dillinger what he was.
The Indiana State Committee on
Governmental Economy has made an
upon men in the Indiana Reforma-
tory and the Indiana State Prison.
Amazing irregularities were revealed.
For example, at the time of the study
there were 46 first offenders sentenced
to the Indiana Reformatory for auto
mobile banditry and their sentences
were as follows: T'hirty-two for 10
years, three for IL years, two for Is
years, two for Is years, four for / to
10 years, one for 5 to 81 years and two
for 10 to Is years. Four of these men
will probably be paroled after serving
a year or little more, while two of
them will have to remain IS years,
unless they are pardoned or their
sentences are commuted by the Gov
ernor.
The sentences of the % first Of
tenders in the State prison who were
sentenced for automobile banditry
were as follows: Sixteen for 10 years,
two for IL years, one for rs years, one
for to 10 years and three for 10 to
Is years.
Gases of Recidiyists.
Sentences for recidivists-repeat-
ers-show the same irregularity. A
few cases from the Indiana State
Prison will illustrate the point. These
are also cases of auto banditry: Two
men who had served one previous
sentence for felony received fiat SEN
tences of 25 years each, but one for
tunate bandit who had served four
sentences for felonies and one for a
miSdemeanor received a sentence of
IL years. Another favored bandit
had served two previous sentences for
felonies and one for a misdemeanor;
his sentence was l to 10 years.
Indiana has had a habitual Grim
inal law for many years. Sixteen men
in the State prison have been SEN
fenced under this law, but 367 others
had as bad or worse records and
had not been sentenced under this
law. A comparative study of SEN
tences for first offenders and recid-
twists for IS different offenses reveals
no well defined tendency on the part
of courts to give heavier sentences to
recidivists than to first offenders.
Approximately so per cent of the
prisoners at both the Indiana Re-
formatory and the Indiana State