Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 24.pdf/522

 The American Institute of Criminal Law hend criminals. We are too apt to imagine either that foreign governments are happy and anxious to dump their criminals upon us, or that when, by extradition proceedings, they attempt to get some of their criminals back such proceedings are only a mask for vindictive politi cal action. But countries like Italy which derive an immense benefit by the emigration of their honest citizens are very much interested that the criminal element, small at best, should not affect the preponderatingly honest and useful migatory current. On the other hand, our atti tude is unjustified in viewing every extradition proceeding as an attempt to get back a political offender. There are some very dangerous for eign criminals at large today in this country whom we have declined to surrender because technically the proof against them of murder, for instance, would not come up to the finest Anglo-Saxon probative grade. Surely we should welcome for our own interest such modifications of existing extradition conventions as would sub stitute for the present uncertain and expensive method of surrendering fugitives a simple and inexpensive one. Lastly, let us bear in mind that nowadays crime in many cases can be effectively handled only by international action. No country is more vitally interested in this than our own, made up, as it is, by so many foreign elements. In our battle against crime we must and should welcome international co-operation. We must act on the assumption that nobody loves a criminal and that the only safe way against him is to segregate him not only from one country but from all countries. Let us therefore en courage international conferences on this subject and welcome the efforts of other countries in this respect.

The report of Committee F, on Inde terminate Sentence and Release on Parole, was presented by Edwin M. Abbott of Philadelphia, chairman. It contained a valuable summary of state and federal legislation on the subject. Mr. Abbott contended that the time has arrived when a uniform law upon the subject has become necessary, and that by a careful comparison of the systems of the various states a bill could be drafted which might be adopted not only by the states in which the sys tem is now in use, but also in those

481

states which have thus far not adopted it. Mr. Abbott does not regard the indeterminate sentence as an essential part of the system; the objection to it is that it places the actual punishment of the prisoner within the discretion or possibly within the will, caprice or whim of a prison or parole board. In regard to the discharge of a paroled prisoner, great diversity exists in the statutes of the several states. The sys tem which Mr. Abbott apparently re gards as one of the best is that of New Mexico, by which the superintendent keeps in touch with the parole, and at any time after six months of exemplary service he may recommend him to the Board of Parole for official discharge. If the board consider the case favorably, they certify the same to the trial judge for his approval; if this is secured, the record is transmitted to the Governor, whose action is final. Not only in this country, but throughout the world, [says the report] the treatment of convicts as still worthy of reclamation is growing. The extension of the parole system to life-termers, after serving a lengthy term in prison, is another evidence of the trend of mind which the public is assuming. Of course, in many states pardons have been procured for lifetermers, but the growing substitution of a system of parole after fifteen or twenty years in prison, or in some instances even less, with a close scrutiny upon the actions of the paroled convict, adds a humanitarian zest in the expansion of the parole system. In Germany, in England, in Austria, in Norway, in Switzerland, in Finland and in other European nations has the system of parole been established and expanded. . . . The parole system continues to grow with mighty force. The results have justified the adoption of this system of mercy. Nearly every state where it has not as yet been given a trial has the matter under consideration.

Committee A, on System for Record ing Data Concerning Criminality, re ported through its chairman, Judge Harry Olson of Illinois. It has not been easy, he said, to secure from all