Evening star., 1936-11-26
3 JUDGES SUGGEST.
D. c. INSTITUTION
TO TREAT 'DRUNKS'
Proposed as Alternative to
Longer Jail Terms Now
Demanded.
| PLAN URGED TO EASE
! PRISON CR0WDING
Bill Expected to Reach Congress
on Proposal-Hazen Cites
Advantages.

Establishment of an institution for
treatment of habitual drunkards, as
proposed . year ago by Commissioner
Melvin c. Hazen. was suggested yes
terday by three Police Court judges as
an alternative to the longer jail sem
tences now being demanded by prose-
cutors.
The proposal was revived by the
magistrates as an outgrowth Of study OF
the serious overcrowding Of District
penal institutions, particularly the JAIL
which has been found due, in part, to
imposition of longer sentences in
Police Court.
A bill for creation of such an in
stitution, on land near the District
Workhouse at OccoQuan, Va, was pre-
sented to Congress at the last session
by the Commissioners. 1t is expected
to be offered again at the coming ses-
sion.
Hazen Proposed Plan.
Hazen proposed the plan when ne
found there were long list OF persons
who repeatedly were sentenced for in
toxication. He argued such persons
should be treated as being sick, rather
than criminal, and given chance for
rehabilitation in a hospital or on a
farm. He insisted the plan would save
the District money spent for repeated
confinement of drunkards at the jail.
Longer sentences are made possible
by legislation enacted August ~, 1885.
but not invoked prior to the advent
of Rice Hooe as assistant corporation
counsel in charge at Police Court.
Hooe conferred at length on the
question of sentences for drunkenness
yesterday with Presiding Judge John
P. Mcmahon. He said afterwards he
would continue to issue second and
third offense intoxication informa-
tions and to ask for convictions.
Use of the two additional charges
means penalties will be $l00 or 80
days or both for the first offense,
5000 or 60 days for the second offense,
$500 or 180 days or both for the third
offense Heretofore first offense in
formations have been brought into
court regardless of the number Of
prior convictions.
Sees Crowded Jury Docket.
Judge Edward M. Curran took the
position that penalties under the two
additional charges are too severe, and
criticized the action on the ground
that the third offense charge would
clutter up the jury court docket. De-
PENDANTS charged with third offense
intoxication are entitled to trial by
Jury since the District Court Of Ap-
peals has held that jury trial may
be demanded where a persons liberty
Is placed in jeopardy for 90 days or
more.
Under the present practice of
charging defendants with first o6ense
intoxication, the court can send them
to jail for as much as a year." Judge
Curran said. 1T seems ridiculous
that charge should be placed against
them which will allow greater
penalty than that.
But in addition to the severe
penalty involved, the additional
charges will clutter up the jury court
docket so that defendants can never
get trial. The jury court is al
ready overburdened. 1t we start this
practice, the full time Of another jury
court will be required"
Hit Wants Cure Devised.
Judge Isaac r. Hit advocated
farm or other curative institution and
Judge Curran also favored some form
Of institutional cure.
Sooner or later something has got
10 be done to cure the evil instead
Of sending old offenders back to jail
every few days" Judge Hit said. 1T
seems to me that instead of making
the penalty more severe, we should
be thinking about providing some
sort of treatment for those apparently
suffering with what amounts to q
disease"
Judge Hit added that since the
order had been put in effect by Hooe,
he has had four or five second -offense
drunkenness cases in his court.
On one second-offense charge last
week, Judge Hitt said, an investiga-
ton showed that the man had been
convicted once before. On the same
day he tried a man on a first-offense
drunkenness charge who, court rec
ords showed, had been convicted 80
times before.
Judges agreed that between 10 and
30 per cent Of those brought into
court for intoxication have records
ranging from l to as many as 30
previous convictions.
II am opposed to enforcement Of
the provisions Of the amendment to
the act because it would mean an
unnecessary burden on the court" I"
said Judge Walter I. Casey. Those
demanding jury trials would require
another Judge and an additional jury
panel.
while visiting In Massachusetts, I
made inquiries about farms for those
who have the drink habit. That may
be the solution to our problem here.
Discussing the problem, Hooe said:
II have never taken it upon myself
10 criticize Congress for enforcement
legislation that body has seen fit to
pass, and 7 have no intention of
starting now. My office will continue
to send second and third of1ense pa
pers into court. 1t Is the prerogative
Of the Judges TO act on them as they
see IT."
Judge Mcmahon declined to COM
nnent.