The Waterbury Democrat. [volume] (Waterbury, Conn.) 1917-1946, 1943-03-02

ktNNANOA VA AAAV ASNhhSSANNh
The statute ruling our Connect
cut Pardon Board ohligeS MI Its
members TO concur TO grant any
pardon One unmereiful judge
blocking u unanimous decision can
prevent any pardon, This contra
diets our American rule Of verdict
by the majority, IN U. 8, A. we
have only nine states where all par
don power Is lodged IN q board that
allows tho governor only ono vote
NS q member, Seven OF these nine
vote by q majority, Only two, --
Connecticut and Minnesota --~ re.
qulre q unanimous decision 10 fune-
tion. The Minnesota board has
three members beside the clerk. The
Connecticut board has six plus the
clerk seven minds to convince
not counting tho states attorney and
prison warden whose approval Is
wanted, II. y, 400 grants that 70
majority of said board shall concur
IN order to make their Judgment
operative and dissenting members
may file with It's clerk In writing
their reasons for dissent"
Majority Verdlcts
The Supreme Court Of U, s, A,
grants majority VerdietS. Dissent.
Ing judges write their opposing rea.
sons, Section 787 co. and Cd OF
our bill give tho wording of tho old
statute Without change except the
omission OF condition which We
should retain; releases absolute OF
conditioned; pNrtlons absolute OF
conditioned,
Tho necessity OF operative par
don power must be admitted II one
comedies that American prisons are
not fulfilling their functions, aS re.
peatedly pointed out IN the report
OF The National Commission on Law
Observance, tauoteS from Survey
OF Release Procedure washing.
ton, D, c. 1880, I'VE conclude
that the present prison system Is
Anticipated and inefficient, II does
not reform tho criminal, II fails
TO protect society. There Is reason
TO believe that II contributes to the
increase OF crime by hardening tho
prisoner" I have watched this
awful hardening,
Why not pardon the prisoner be-
fore We have so hardened him as
TO defeat the purpose OF punish
mentP
The opponents OF the Youth Cor
roetion Authority Act Of California
Qo42) declare that "the causes OF
the present systems failure 10 pre-.
vent repeated crime by the very
persons who have been subject to
II, are these: % II too often sub
jeets eonvicts Of eorreetable charac-
ter to deteriorative influences and
10 character destructive expert
enees," -- sex tragedies, for example,
90 1t returns It's victims to social
freedom definitely less able to alb
stain from crime, and often less
willing to do so than before they
were subject 10 II. 90 When 1t
returns It's victims to social free.
dom 1t leaves them to face crime
productive presSures even stronger
than they had previously known,
with no help or encouragement In
resistance thereto"
Devoted Love
Those words can be deduced as
pleas for pardon In the face OF SEN
fences so long as to break family
ties. At the Connecticut Board OF
Pardons I have heard the vain ap-
peals of the mother the bethrothed,
the friends of the convict. Yet,
were he pardoned, no more potent
forces against his temptations could
be found than such devoted love.
Sentences TO the limit decreed by
courts are held more sacred than
family ties created by Godl The
Survey of Release Procedures
traces this doctrine of what Con-
necticut calls "the AVAILABILITY Of
the courts" to the teaching Of
French revolutionaries: power re-
sides in the people: the people are
the State; the Stae can do no wrong.
That the State can do no wrong,
is Nazi doctrine. Must we maintain
their doctrine? Yes; as long as we
cherish our totalitarian penal slave
system. However, Justice Holmes
declares: Pardon in our days Is
not a private act of grace. 1t is
part of the constitutional scheme.
1t is the determination of ultimate
authority that the public welfare
will be better served by inflicting
less than what the judgment hxed. "
For example: when the parole
low forbids parole before the min
imum sentence has been served, the
Judge fixes an abnormally high min
imum,-conditional pardon Is the
most obvious solution" tCThe
Survey
Absolute pardon may be the only
possible relief 10 the innocent man
unjustly convicted, through mis-
taken identity; perjury OF witnesses;
the misconstructiOn OF circumstan-
tial evidence; or through false con-
LESSONS forced by third degree
methods. I. myself know examples
OF all such cases.
ITO submit a reformed perpetratoF
70 further years Of reformatoTy A.