themselves indifferent to public opinion are not moved by the kindly court hearing in which they are given "another chance." The one thing that seems to affect them is the removal of their children. It would seem to be the part of wisdom to act positively and remove the children immediately, and make the condition of their return that the parents show themselves changed and fit guardians capable of providing adequately for their family. When the children in such cases are returned immediately after a court hearing, with the warning that they may be removed later, the parents feel that their ways have been vindicated, and the occasional visits of a probation officer cannot possibly counteract this conviction. Another ill effect of the negative procedure is that the neighbors who have resorted to the court as the last appeal lose respect for the law that returns children to the same hopeless situation. The more summary form of treatment on the other hand has had a distinctly good psychological effect on the neighbors who may even help the parents restore themselves in the court's confidence, instead of having the old antagonism heightened to a dangerous pitch.

Cases of such extremely delinquent parents are not frequent. For them to receive the kind of attention and treatment they require, they should be heard in separate session as occasion demands. The hearings might then take on somewhat the character of a criminal proceeding and time be given for a thoughtful consideration of carefully prepared evidence. Thus only can a decent chance be given the unfortunate children who are of all creatures the most helpless. For it is impossible to measure the evil that comes to children, physically, mentally and spiritually, from constant subjection to cruel, ignorant and incompetent parents.

The establishment of the Family Court will mean not something new, but rather a more perfect organization along present lines of the different court divisions. It will mean, first, a probation department whose members will consider themselves primarily as belonging to the court as a whole, and only secondarily as juvenile, misdemeanants' or domestic relations officers. It will mean the central filing of records, so that when one member of the family is known in one division, and his brother, sister or child comes into another, the family history gathered in the first case will be available in the second, or the two cases may be merged.

The actual sub-division of the court, as regards hearings and the assignment of judges, will be of necessity by the product of experimentation. The following is offered as a tentative plan of organization of such a Family Court, as related to a Municipal Court.

CRIMINAL LAW REFORM

(Report of the Committee of the American Prison Association1)

EDWARD D. DUFFIELD, Chairman

Owing to the fact that the membership of this Committee has been widely distributed from a geographical standpoint, it has been impossible for the Committee to hold a meeting and its conferences have necessarily been conducted through correspondence. Under these circumstances the Chairman has endeavored to formulate the views of the Committee as expressed in correspondence, but must assume full responsibility for the formulation of the report and the method of presentation.

The determination of what reforms are needed in the criminal law would seem to require as a preliminary an examination of the object and purpose of the criminal law in order to ascertain how nearly that object is now attained. The main, if, indeed, not the sole object of criminal law is the protection of society, or, as Blackstone2 puts it, "the end or final cause of human punishment is not by way of atonement of expiation for the crime committed; for that must be left to the just determination of the Supreme Being; but as a precaution against future offenses of the same kind. This is effected three ways: Either by the amendment of the offender himself; . . . or, by deterring others by the dread of his example from offending in the . or, by depriving the party injuring of the power

like way;

to do future mischief."

We are very likely to swing from one extreme to another in the position we take on any question. The solution of the problem is usually found somewhere between the two extremes. For years we have sought to attain the end of human punishment by adopting the last two methods suggested, and have given little consideration to the amendment of the offender himself. Suddenly we have come to a realization of the futility of success in eliminating the reformation of the criminal as a means of attaining the end which we seek. Formerly the sole consideration was given to the punishment inflicted. Now we seem to consider the criminal and to disregard the crime. Somewhere between these two extremes must be found the proper

1Presented at the annual meeting of the American Prison Association, New Orleans, November, 1917.

2Commentaries, Vol. IV, Chap. 1, Sec. 2.

method to adopt in order to protect society. The criminal, on the one hand, must be reformed; and, on the other, those who are not yet criminals must be deterred from becoming criminals. Because we have reached the conclusion that inhuman treatment is not an essential part of punishment we need not blind ourselves that punishment properly administered will play a part in the rehabilitation of the criminal and will also act as a deterrent.

We must not forget that society as well as the criminal has rights which must not be infringed upon, and in all consideration of changes and alterations, which admittedly are needed to adjust the criminal law of today to a more ideal condition, we must not too lightly dismiss the idea of punishment and overemphasize the idea of consideration for the criminal. Somewhere there must be found a middle ground in which society actuated by humane motives and safeguarding the criminal against cruelty and abuse will furnish protection for itself by adequate penalty.

Referring again to Blackstone, he, although living at a time when capital punishment was meted out to those guilty of the most trivial offenses, seems to have had a clear vision of the road to be followed in order to attain the end sought. He says: "Though the end of punishment is to deter men from offending, it can never follow from thence, that it is lawful to deter them at any rate and by any means; since there may be unlawful methods of enforcing obedience even to the justest laws." "Punishment," he says, "ought always to be proportioned to the particular purpose it is meant to serve, and by no means to exceed it." He concludes the first chapter of the fourth book of his commentaries, that devoted to crimes, with the following observation, which seems to us most apt:

"We may observe that punishments of unreasonable severity, especially when indiscriminately inflicted, have less effect in preventing crimes, and amending the manners of a people, than such as are more merciful in general, yet properly intermixed with due distinctions of severity. It is the sentiment of an ingenious writer, who seems to have well studied the springs of human action, that crimes are more effectively prevented by the certainty, than by the severity, of punishment. . . . It is a kind of quackery in government, and argues a want of solid skill, to apply to same universal remedy, the ultimum supplicium, to every case of difficulty. It is, it must be owned, much easier to extirpate than to amend mankind; yet that magistrate must be esteemed both a weak and a cruel surgeon, who cuts off every limb, which through ignorance or indolence he will not attempt to cure."

We doubt whether there could be enunciated today, and with the enlightenment of the twentieth century, a clearer direction for those

whose duty it is to enact and enforce criminal law. Unfortunately, we have today magistrates who adopt the easier course of extirpating rather than seeking to amend mankind. Lawmakers apparently have not learned that certainty rather than severity of punishment will prove in the long run the greater deterrent. At a time and in a country in which unpunished crimes are steadily upon the increase, where life is treated as cheaply as it is in the United States of America today, it might be well for lawmakers and magistrates alike to read with care the views of the great exponent of the English Common Law, and apply some of the principles he recognizes.

Within the limit of a report such as this, it is, of course, impossible to discuss in detail the various reforms which might be applicable to the criminal law of the several states. We dismiss them necessarily with the general observations above made. There are some matters, however, which seem to require particular consideration.

INDETERMINAte Sentence

It is unnecessary, we are sure, to an Association such as this to discuss the merits of the Indeterminate Sentence. By common consent those interested in prison reform have reached the conclusion that it furnishes the best method of fixing the extent of punishment it is necessary for society to inflict in order to produce the result sought. It is now the law of many states. It should be the purpose of this Association to see that it is universally adopted. At the present time the constitutionality of some of these laws are under attack. In order that this law may have effect it may, therefore, be necessary to procure in some states constitutional amendments. We would suggest that the Association either through its Secretary, or through the next Committee on Criminal Law Reform secure a compilation of the various statutes, indicating those which have stood the test of constitutionality, and those which have failed, in order that a model may be perfected, and that efforts may be made where it conflicts with constitutional mandate to procure an amendment to the constitution permitting its enactment.

Before dismissing this subject there is one point which we feel should be emphasized. The success or failure of the indeterminate sentence depends almost entirely upon its administration. The determination as to whether reformation of the criminal has been secured is, of course, a question of the greatest difficulty. It cannot be done by

any

set rule or method. No machinery yet devised by man can mechanically reach a satisfactory conclusion upon this point. As long