The Waterbury Democrat., 1936-06-11


 leading to the public to condemn probation or parole because any group of major criminals, whether the number is large or small, have at some time been tried out on probation or parole. We should ex- pect that increasingly those of long criminal record would early in their careers have been tried out on probation and if, as is usually the case, they have been committed to prisons under indeterminate sen- tenceg for earlier or lesser offenseg they would and should have been on parole as the only sensible and safe form of discharge from Q prison.
 Probation Effective
 Probation should be and today often is Q far more effective method of discipline and control of young offenders than would be short prison or Jail term. The parole sys- tenn in more than one state provides q method for individually deterfnin- ing the proper term of iEnprison. inent, and provides for 6 continue ton of supervision and effective adjustment of the released offender when he returns, as he must in most cases after few years, to the temptations of the world outside. It has been proved definitely by the Massachusetts figures that the term of Imprisonment is not shortened, as seems to be implied in all of Mir. Hoover's speeches, by the applica- ton of parole but may indeed be longer than under the definite fixed sentence term"
 After quoting MT. Hoover's latest attack on the parole system" in which he says that practically every special agent of the federal bureau of investigation who has died on the field of battle against criminals has been sent to his death by 6 gun in the hands of parcled convicts," MT. Chute points out that records will show that:
 Few if any of these men were under actual parole supervision at
 the time they committed their desperate deeds. Some of them after serving prison terms have been released on parole early or
 late in their careers, but why should the use of parole alone be blamed for subsequent criminal careers, and not the years served
 In prison? IS there any reA-
 son for the naive assumption that
 to keep these men in prison for
 their maximum terms and then to
 discharge them without any sue
 pervision or restraint would make
 them any less dangerous to society
 when they come out?"
 Accepts Challenge
 Tn conclusion the association ac- cepts the challenge offered by the careers of the notorious gunflnen, John Dillinger and Alvin Karpis, often instanced as breakdowns of the probation and parole systems. Of Dilinger 1t states:
 Not too much probation and parole made him what he became, but too much prison. Hc was never given a chance on probation or tifl- der any other helpful form of treat ment before he was committed as Q first offender. He served six years and was paroled in due course, eni- bittered and hardened by his treat ment. His was certainly not 6 case of misplaced leniency."
 "Alvin Karpis," also, 1t should be remembered. never had the benefit of probation or parole supervision in his life. He was sent to Q refori1na- tory at sixteen, and later to the pen- itentlary where he met his later criminal pals. Later he received c suspended sentence after three months in jail in . state where there exists no probation or parole law. without doubt further study of many of these criminals would show that 1t was early commitment for long terms to penal institutions and the lack of any constructive treat- ment which developed the very type of offender in which Mir. Hoover is chiefly interested"
 Miss Kathleen Crowley, juvenile court probation officer, attended sev- eral sessions of the convention. Miss Crowley is member ot the national association. Judge Edward Mascoio of the city court bench was m an~ .a..aa~a.A i. Af.~ mNsassmsakaeaa