JAMES V. BENNETT, Director, U. S. Bureau of Prisons SANFORD BATES, Commissioner of Institutions and Agen- SHELDON GLUECK, Professor of Criminology, Harvard EDWIN H. SUTHERLAND, Head, Department of Sociology, JOSEPH MURPHY, Chief Probation Officer, Essex County, WALTER W. PETTIT, Director, New York School of Social THORSTEN SELLIN, Professor of Sociology, University of HARRY HILL, Chief Probation Officer, Cook County Juve- A. H. CONNER, Associate Commissioner, Federal Prison JUSTIN MILLER, President, National Association of Broad- JOSEPH SANFORD, Warden, U. S. Penitentiary, Atlanta, AUSTIN H. MACCORMICK, Executive Director, The Osborne RAY L. HUFF, Director, District of Columbia Board of FRANK LOVELAND, Assistant Director, U. S. Bureau of CHARLES L. CHUTE, Executive Director, National Proba- WILL SHAFROTH, Chief, Division of Procedural Studies and G. HOWLAND SHAW, Washington, D. C. HOWARD GILL, Superintendent, District of Columbia Penal RONALD H. BEATTIE, Chief, Bureau of Criminal Statis- Federal Probation is edited by the United States Probation System, Washington, D. C., and is published quarterly by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts in co-operation with the Bureau of Prisons of the United States Department of Justice. All phases of preventive and corrective activities in delinquency and crime come within the field of interest of Federal Probation. The Quarterly wishes to share with its readers all constructively worth-while points of view and welcomes the contributions of those engaged in the study of juvenile and adult offenders. Federal, State, and local organizations, institutions and agencies-both public and private-are invited to submit any significant experience and findings related to the prevention and treatment of delinquency and crime. The United States Probation System does not necessarily endorse nor assume responsibility for the statementswhether fact or opinion-made by its contributors. Manuscripts are printed upon authority of the writers. Manuscripts (in duplicate), editorial matters, books, and communications should be addressed to Federal Probation, Supreme Court Building, Washington 13, D. C. Permission to quote is granted on condition that appropriate credit is given to the author and the Quarterly. *Richard A. Chappell and Victor H. Evjen are on military leave. One of the encouraging results of war's end It was a happy coincidence that 1945 was the The Secretary of War, the Honorable Robert P. In discussing "Military Justice" (p. 3), Sec- several civilian-military boards on clemency. This is an excellent historical review of the new military penology and its reading cannot New developments in prisons, parole, and crime control in 1945 are related next by Director James V. Bennett of the Federal Bureau of Pris- ons. Mr. Bennett expects a rise in prison popula- tion in the next few years because of returning veterans' reconversion problems, and the steady rise in juvenile delinquency. He calls the military correctional programs "probably the most strik- ing development in the correctional field during 1945," and describes the progress made by States in their correctional programs, control of youth, "Developments in Prisons, Parole, and Crime Control: 1945" (p. 8) is a brief, to-the-point What might be called the climate of an insti- writing on "The Setting for Rehabilitation" (p. 11). After many years of correctional experience, with much of it in institutional classification work, Mr. Loveland is excellently qualified to challenge the present institutional emphasis on training services to the neglect of the emotional surroundings. He examines the institution setting in relation to its production of bad inmate attitude and finds two major causes of antagonism: irritating rules and regulations, and improper handling of inmates by institution personnel. He offers straightforward suggestions for a re-examination of regulations, and in an interesting, personal way identifies three types of officer who hinder a program: the antisocial, the unbeliever, and the ignorant. Mr. Loveland concludes his statement with a description of the qualities of a good officer. Criminal hygiene is the study and investigation of the causes, prevention, and treatment of crime. Dr. Robert V. Seliger, assistant visiting psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins Hospital and instructor in psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University Medical School, tells us in his paper on "Criminal Hygiene" (p. 16), how this technique should be applied in our fight against crime. Dr. Seliger feels that our present correctional program is inadequate and makes many excellent suggestions on how criminal hygiene can be utilized in the home and community, and with the individual criminal, at each step of the correctional process. He proposes several revisions in institutional administration which are thoughtprovoking and should excite comment from students of penology. What makes a good probation officer? What weight should the personality factor have in the selection of an officer? Who is interested in an officer's personality? What basic personality elements should he possess? You will find the answers to these questions in an interesting discussion of "The Personality of the Probation Officer" (p. 27), by Dr. Samuel W. Hartwell, professor of psychiatry at the University of Buffalo Medical School. In his paper, Dr. Hartwell emphasizes the importance of the personality factor in probation officers but cautions against any neglect of academic training. He believes that there never has been nor ever will be a formally untrained officer, no matter how excellent his personality, who would not be a better officer if he had formal training. He advocates balance and urges probation to avoid the great error of new professions: ". the tendency to emphasize formal training at one period to the exclusion of consideration of the officer's personality and, at another time, to emphasize personality to the exclusion of training." Citizens charged with the selection of new officers will find this a challenging statement; and probation officers themselves will be more enthusiastic for its reading. Another of the practical discussions of a probation officer's duties in particular types of cases comes from Chief Probation Officer Joseph P. Murphy of the Essex County Probation Service. Mr. Murphy uses the interesting case history of a veteran as a foundation for his evaluation of the relationship of "The Probationer and the Probation Officer" (p. 32). Mr. Murphy writes from his long experience in probation work and his paper contains many fine suggestions for those in the field. A considerable portion of the audience at the Congress of Correction who heard Frank J. Cohen, executive director of New York City's Youth House, seemed to regard the philosophy and modus operandi of this institution as at least experimental if not revolutionary, although as Judge Paul W. Alexander pointed out in his remarks, its philosophy has long since passed the experimental stage. Mr. Cohen, in "The Child in the Detention Home Program” (p. 36), gives his ideas of the purpose and function of the juvenile detention home; the essentials of harmonious staff, pleasant surroundings, and scientific, nonpunitive detention environment; and then from the 2year experience of Youth House shows how these "advanced" techniques can be made to work to the juvenile's advantage. All articles appearing in this magazine are regarded as appropriate expressions of ideas worthy of thought, but their publication is not to be taken as an indorsement of the views set forth, by the editors or the Federal probation office. The editors may or may not agree with the articles appearing in the magazine, but believe them in any case to be deserving of consideration. I' BY THE HONORABLE ROBERT P. PATTERSON Secretary of War, Washington, D. C. T IS a pleasure for me to be present at the annual dinner of the Congress of Correction, particularly to express my appreciation of the assistance the Army has received from the correctional field and from individual members of your profession in handling one of our most difficult problems. When the Army found itself faced with a steadily increasing prison problem, those of us who had to concern ourselves with military justice did what we could to become penologists overnight. We turned to some of the leaders in your field and enlisted their services on a Board of Consultants which has helped us greatly in the determination of sound policies. I say candidly that their aid has been of inestimable value to the Army in this work. In the development and operation of our installations, programs of training, and clemency procedures, we have accepted and followed principles in which I know you believe, particularly the principle that every offender should be studied and treated as an individual. We have used standard classification procedures and have utilized professionally trained personnel in our institutions and in the processing of clemency cases. We believe that our program of rehabilitation will stand your professional scrutiny. Perhaps the best way for me to convince you of that fact is to tell you what the Army's problem has been and how we have tried to solve it. Court-martial Safeguards Individual Rights What I have to say tonight is concerned chiefly with our program of rehabilitation and restoration to duty and our release procedures. I do not want you to forget, however, the safeguards which are thrown around the rights of the individual in our court-martial system. He has all the rights of a defendant in a United States district court and some additional ones. He is not recommended for a general courtmartial until after a formal investigation at which he has a right to question witnesses him An address delivered at the 75th annual Congress of Correction, New York City, November 16, 1945. self or through counsel. At the trial he is represented by military counsel or can employ a civilian lawyer. The "law member" of the court is also responsible for safeguarding his rights throughout the trial. If he is convicted, appeal is automatic. The staff judge advocate checks the record, reviews the evidence, and on the basis of his findings the reviewing authority confirms, reduces, or sets aside the sentence. The case then goes to the Judge Advocate General's Office, or to its representative overseas, and is carefully reviewed. Finally, if the man is sent to a disciplinary barracks or Federal institution, his case is reviewed by the Office of the Under Secretary of War within six months and annually thereafter. Prisoner Total Relatively Low The number of general court-martial prisoners in confinement in this country and overseas when Japan surrendered was 33,500. Of these, 13,500 were in disciplinary barracks; 6,000, in rehabilitation centers; 2,700, in Federal institutions; 900, in guardhouses in this country awaiting transfer to disciplinary barracks or rehabilitation centers; and 10,500, overseas, largely in disciplinary training centers where they still had an opportunity for restoration to duty. In addition to those on hand at the end of active hostilities, we had restored to duty 17,000 men in this country and another 4,000 overseas, and had given medical discharges or other types of release to another 6,000 men. The total number of general prisoners we have handled is therefore close to 60,000. This is a large number, but it is the grist of over three years of war and of the largest Army the United States has ever had. The size of our military prison population is not abnormal, when one considers all the facts. Since the Selective Training and Service Act was passed in 1940, 10 million men have joined the Army and its strength at the end of hostilities was 8 million men. The total intake of 60,000 general prisoners is only a little more than half of one per cent of the men who passed through the Army, and the total in confinement on V-J Day was less than half of one per cent of the strength of the Army. Over 4 million American soldiers served in the European Theater of Operations from January 1942, when the first American troops arrived overseas, until V-E Day. Of this number, only 10,289-less than one in every 400-were sentenced to confinement by general courts-martial. This record is a tribute. to the men who have gone through the greatest military campaign in history. It is evidence not only of their fine training and leadership, but also of the fact that almost all our boys served faithfully and maintained an honorable status. Aside from the size of the Army from which our general prisoners came, it is not to be wondered that a relatively small number of American soldiers got into enough trouble to warrant trial by general court-martial. They fall in the age group, 18 to 40, which contributes 80 per cent of the civilian felony convictions in this country in time of peace. A large part of them are in their late teens and early twenties, the age bracket that leads all others in civilian offenses, as you know. As a matter of fact, the total number of 60,000 general prisoners received in our military prison installations in the past four years is just about equal to one year's intake of felony convictions alone in our State and Federal prisons in normal times. Our armed forces served all over the world. Country boys who had never been more than a few miles from home before went to sections of the globe of which they had never heard before this war began. The Army crossed the International Date Line so often that many a man had had two Mondays or Fridays a week, although nobody ever got two paydays in succession. We had men in the polar regions and in steaming hot jungles, in the capitals of Europe and on lonely atolls in the Pacific. Many of these men suffered new privations, felt new pressures, tensions, and temptations. They were living a rough and a violent life. It is not remarkable that men under these conditions, lacking the steadying influence of their homes and communities, did foolish and reckless things, and that others did brutal and vicious things. In this latter group were some who would undoubtedly have followed a criminal pattern of life if they had never entered the Army. It is only fair to say, however, that there is no evidence that men who had civil convictions as adults on their records before they were inducted got into trouble in large numbers in the Army; the only evidence that has appeared clearly so far on that point is that a large proportion of our general prisoners have records of juvenile delinquency. Prisoner Problem Increased With Size of Army Our general court-martial cases cover a great range and variety; every type of offense from AWOL to murder and rape, committed by all types of men under all conditions and circumstances. There are mountain boys who went AWOL from homesickness, men who overstayed a furlough and were afraid to come back, gangplank jumpers, and deliberate deserters from the Anzio Beachhead and critical points in the Battle of the Bulge. There are men convicted of misconduct in the face of the enemy who are admitted cowards, and others who cracked up after good combat records. There are young officers who passed bad checks, and black market operators with elaborate schemes and large profits. There are manslaughters resulting from knife fights over crap games, and cold-blooded murders. There are cases of rape committed in every theater of war. There are mutiny cases and disloyalty cases. Taking it by and large, however, the Army was surprisingly well behaved, its discipline was good, its morale high. If you could march the whole Army by a reviewing stand and had to pull out only one soldier to try by general courtmartial of every 200 men that passed, you might have a very imposing group of general prisoners when you got through; but a tremendous number of men with clear records would have passed by. If you subtract from those you pulled out and tried, the 25,000 men, virtually the strength of two infantry divisions, who have been restored to duty or are to be, the remainder would look even smaller in comparison with the 10 million men who saw service in the Army. There was a time, however, when we found it difficult to think in terms of the relative smallness of the load. Now, when we feel that the peak of our prison load has passed, we can view the problem a bit more philosophically than we did in the days when the number of general prisoners, keeping pace roughly with the growth of the Army, was mounting fast. We not only had a very large number of prisoners to handle but were in a most unusual and uncomfortable situ ation, from the prison standpoint; our intake was steadily rising and there was not much in the way of outgo. We had to open a new 2,000man installation in this country every four months, find commissioned and enlisted person |