Advantages of Probation.

Some of the principal advantages of probation are:

By having a probation officer investigate the history, character and circumstances of defendants and report the findings to the court before sentence is pronounced, the court is enabled to deal with each offender according to his individual needs.

By giving offenders not hardened in evil ways another opportunity, and by placing them under kindly but firm control and helpful influences, probation is an effective means of correcting bad habits and dangerous tendencies.

By avoiding commitment to institutions, probation prevents the breaking-up of families; and by avoiding the imprisonment of a wage-earner, probation prevents those dependent on him from suffering through the withdrawal of his wages.

By keeping the young and first offenders from association with degenerates and criminals in jails and similar institutions, probation prevents further disgrace, discouragement, and demoralization.

By keeping the court informed about the conduct and condition of persons conditionally released under probation, and by securing, if necessary, their re-arrest, probation enables the court to punish those who abuse its clemency.

By requiring negligent parents to properly look after their children, probation prevents the children from becoming confirmed in evil ways.

By decreasing commitments to correctional institutions and by overcoming misconduct in its early stages, probation saves money to taxpayers.

By permitting defendants in suitable cases to pay their fines in instalments, probation enables poor persons to avoid the imprisonment which would otherwise result from their inability to pay their fines at the time of trial.

By requiring defendants in suitable cases to make restitution for the losses and damages caused by their offenses, probation secures recompense for the persons whom the offenders have injured.

By requiring non-supporting husbands to pay weekly instalments for the support of their families, probation promotes family welfare and avoids the necessity of supporting the probationers' families by charity.

Growth of Probation in Other States.

Prior to 1900 only 6 states had probation laws. To-day the system is authorized in 37 states and the District of Columbia, the system being applied to adults in 20 states, and to children in 36 states and the District of Columbia.

During 1909 seven states - Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, authorized probation for adult offenders for the first time, and three statesNevada, Oklahoma and South Dakota, passed laws for the first time for juvenile probation. The State of Maine which had previously had probation in only one county and one city, enacted legislation in 1909 making the system state-wide.

The first annual report of the Massachusetts Commission on Probation shows that the number of persons placed on probation in that state during the year ending September 30, 1909, was 13,967. This represents 9.4 per cent. of the number of persons charged with crimes and misdemeanors in that state. Every court in Massachusetts has one or more paid probation officers.

The economy of the probation system is indicated in the fact that while the cost for the support of the various county and State correctional institutions in Massachusetts last year was $1,811,336.28, the salaries and expenses of the probation officers amounted to only $100,187.29. Against this, probation officers collected in fines, restitution and moneys for the support of probationers' families, a total of $49,067.74. The financial advantages of the system are regarded, however, as incidental as compared to its moral and social benefits.

Desired Legislation.

When most of the present probation laws of the State were drafted it was impossible to anticipate the many conditions and necessities that would develop in the administration of the probation system; and in consequence the present laws are in many regards unsatisfactory and inadequate. Bills intended to remedy the more serious omissions and defects in the present laws will be presented by the Commission to the present Legislature.

The power of courts to release defendants on probation and to regulate the conditions of their conduct while on probation should be better defined. Certain meritorious practices which have been followed without statutory authorization should be made unquestionably legal. For instance, courts frequently impose the condition that probationers in suitable cases shall make restitution to the aggrieved parties; or that men guilty of not supporting their families shall, while on probation, make payments in instalments for their support. The power to prescribe these and other desirable conditions is conferred by statute upon courts in other states. Inferior courts should be given the right, now possesed by courts prosecuting cases by indictment, to suspend sentence in cases where fines have been imposed, and to permit the collection of fines in instalments from probationers by probation officers. The present limitation of the maximum period of probation in cases of children to one year, or if a child has passed his fifteenth birthday, to less than one year, is unfortunate, since children should frequently be kept on probation for longer periods. The maximum period of probation permitted in cases of adults convicted of minor offenses is also often too restricted. Legislation should also be enacted stating more fully than at present the powers and duties of probation officers, and providing more definitely for various other features of probation work.

PART II. DETAILED REPORT.

Members and Officers of the Commission.

During the year there have been three changes in the personnel of the Commission. Former Supreme Court Justice Alphonso T. Clearwater of Kingston, by appointment by Governor Hughes, succeeded Felix M. Warburg of New York City, resigned; Francis C. Huntington of New York City, by appointment by the State Commission of Prisons, succeeded Roger P. Clark of Binghamton, resigned; and Horace McGuire of Rochester, by appointment by the State Board of Charities, succeeded Dennis McCarthy of Syracuse, resigned.

At the annual meeting of the Commission in January, 1909, Commissioners Folks and McKenna were re-elected president and vice-president, respectively.

Meetings of the Commission.

The Commission held the following meetings during 1909: January 14. At the United Charities Building, New York City. Regular meeting. Present: Commissioners Folks, McKenna, Huntington, McCarthy and Wade.

March 11. At the Capitol, Albany. Regular meeting. Present: Commissioners Folks, McKenna, McCarthy and Wade. May 28. At the Capitol, Albany. Regular meeting. Present: Commissioners Folks, McKenna, Draper, Huntington, McCarthy and Wade.

July 8. At the United Charities Building, New York City. Regular meeting. Present: Commissioners Folks, McKenna, Huntington, McCarthy and Wade.

September 9. At the United Charities Building, New York City. Regular meeting. Present: Commissioners Folks, McKenna, McCarthy and Wade.

November 16. At the Ten Eyck Hotel, Albany. Regular meeting. Present: Commissioners Folks, McKenna, Huntington and Wade.

November 16-17. At the Ten Eyck Hotel, Albany. Conference of probation officers. Present: Commissioners Folks, McKenna, Huntington and Wade.

December 4. At the Iroquois Hotel, Buffalo. Special meeting. Present: Commissioners Folks, McKenna, McGuire and Wade. December 10-11. At the Ten Eyck Hotel, Albany. Conference of city magistrates. Present: Commissioners Folks, Draper, McGuire and Wade.

Proper and Improper Uses of Probation.

Success in probation work depends, among other things, on these conditions:

1. That courts select competent and faithful probation officers.

2. That courts select for probationary treatment suitable defendants.

3. That courts keep persons on probation sufficiently long. 4. That probation officers keep closely informed regarding the conduct of those under their care.

5. That probation officers use effective means to improve the habits of those under their care.

6. That persons on probation proving unfit for such treatment be returned to court for other treatment.

While the purposes and proper use of probation are much better understood than formerly, the operations of the system in some places, as indicated below, are still far from what they should be. Careless and ineffective probation work, besides failing to reform offenders, may foster the belief that crime can be committed with impunity, and may weaken public respect for criminal courts.

Some probation officers are indifferent to their duties, while others are incapable of fulfilling them. Policemen who may have neither interest nor belief in the possibility of reforming offenders, are in some places called upon to do probation work. One police officer who had acted as probation officer for a considerable period, said to a representative of this Commission that he disliked the bother of having boys on probation come to see him. It is unnecessary to say that he never went to see them. On the other hand volunteer probation officers are sometimes appointed who