78 State Papers and Addresses

Persons, so selected, to do the work properly and effectively must first
of all be like Caesar's wife—beyond suspicion. Suspicion of corruption or other
improper motive, political, financial, social, or otherwise, will sooner or later
discredit any system of Parole. That is not all, ignorant favoritism, sensless
leniency, political trading, will produce the same destructive results. On the
other hand, a Parole system if handled on a dictatorial, harsh treatment basis,
seldom accomplishes what it was instituted to do.

Before proceeding any further, let me say that there are, of course,
thousands of persons in prison who ought to remain there for the good of
society, as well as themselves—and on whose behalf all influence, pressure, or
suggestion from whatever source, no matter how high or powerful, must for
the common welfare be resisted.

Many of the conditions with which a proper Parole system finds it neces-
sary to deal and consider, are the results of the shortcomings of society itself,
—frequently almost as much as the shortcomings of the offender. The con-
tributory negligence of organized society has in many instances caused the
wrongful act committed by the offender. That fact, when found, however,
must not completely control. An honest judgment arrived at after thorough
consideration, and delicate balancing of all the facts is the best that can be
hoped for.

Change of social conditions involves a long fight and many considerations,
and cannot be brought about immediately. There is reasonable prospect, how-
ever, that a change can be effected regarding certain other factors frequently
found in Parole investigations. I refer to the inequality of sentences ad-
ministered for substantially the same class of offense. It is notorious that
there is a difference even in the same jurisdiction in the sentences passed by
different judges, —such a wide difference that it can be explained only on the
theory of temperament or radically different theories of penalties. Something
surely can be done about this, and it would seem that the Judges, as a class,
aided perhaps by the Bar Associations, should undertake to make the correction-
Aside from inequality of sentence, serious thought by those interested in
the Parole system should be given to the development of some plan where under
more information concerning the offender—his background—the real facts
concerning him as a human being—should be at hand, and given consideration
before the sentence is passed. As it is now, the ordinary course, especially
in large communities, is to pass Sentence upon the convicted offender with all
too little information concerning him as a human being. No judge, wise or
otherwise, can, I submit, make out a proper sentence if in a majority of in-
stances he does not make the inquiries necessary, or have the benefit of a larger
amount of knowledge than is ordinarily obtained at the average trial on a
particular charge.

Lawyers know that with regard to the imposition of sentences, there are
"hard" Judges; and that there are "easy" Judges. I would like to call attention
to the fact that there are also some indifferent Judges. As a result of the
handiwork of these three classes of the sentencing power, there is little or no
relief except through either their self-correction—or in the mean time, an
efficiently operating Parole system.

The last of the English Samuel Butler's, in his Erewhon, introduced the
thought that in a completely civilized society, the man we call criminal, should