of Governor Herbert R. O'Conor 77

INTERSTATE COMMISSION ON CRIME

In Conjunction with American Bar Association Convention

July 7, 1939
San Francisco, California

THE wisdom of attempting to rehabilitate criminal offenders by the ap-
plication of some method of Parole is no longer a subject for debate
amongst most thoughtful Americans. Further discussion of that principle
has long since been foreclosed in nearly all of our States, as well as in the
jurisdiction of the Federal Government. This considered judgment has been
arrived at not only from the standpoint of aid to, and the welfare of the
individual offender, but also from the standpoint of the ultimate protection
and benefit of society itself.

The great majority of that large number of persons annually incarcerated
for various offenses must in the nature of things be ultimately released from
prison—turned loose, so to speak, into, and maybe on society. The attitude of
the person, so released, and society, each to the other, then becomes one of the
very greatest importance to both. In many instances a proper investigation
shows that the imprisoned person can be given the help and encouragement
resulting from a Parole, without the slightest injury to the interests of the
public. In such cases it would be not only an injustice, but a form of cruelty
and vindictiveness on the part of organized society not to grant a parole. It
was for reasons such as these, and others, that there have been established
throughout the Nation varying Parole systems.

The old spirit of "All hope abandon, ye who enter here, " no longer hovers
universally over the doors of our places of confinement. The burden of con-
sideration has shifted therefore from the question as to the wisdom of
a system of Parole, to the question of how to institute and administer such
a system, —in a word, how best to make it work in justice, and to the benefit
of both the public and the prisoner.

I have already called attention to the fact that systems of Parole in
varying form have been established throughout the Nation. The statement
can be conservatively ventured that no matter what the form of these systems
in the various States, none of them will be found to be any better than those
who administer them. No system ever is. Human nature being what it is,
the administration of any system, including of course that of Parole, tends
towards mistake and inefficiency if extraneous considerations are allowed to
creep in.

Too many paroles have been granted because somebody wanted to be
generous; some have been granted because somebody was either too lazy—too
ignorant—too careless; and there have been instances in which there was ap-
parently some ground for the belief that the act was brought about by im-
proper considerations. I repeat, no Parole system can. be expected to be, or
can be more efficient and satisfactory than are the officials who administer it.

In the establishment and administration of a Parole system, the first step
to be taken, as it strikes me, is the one that would appear as though it were
the easiest—to wit, the selection of the person or persons to perform the
function of investigating, considering, and recommending.