[The idea is not so revolutionary as it might be. Recently Mr. T. M.
Osborne tried a week’s self-incarceration at Auburn Prison, New York.
As a result the general public, reading of his experiences, has a
knowledge to-day of the more common methods of prison administration
than it would have learned, or have been willing to learn in any other
way. Now the Boston (Mass.) Globe comes along with a more radical
suggestion, which we herewith summarize.]
“One advocate of the practice of making judges investigate the prisons,
an ex-magistrate of New York City, made the assertion that ‘every judge
ought to be sentenced to 30 days in jail before he is permitted to send
a prisoner there.’
“‘What does an ordinary judge know of prison? What method can he have
of judging a proper punishment for an offender, if he does not know
what the punishment is like?’ asks this authority.
“The policy of imposing upon judges the obligation of a personal
acquaintance with the conditions of the institutions to which they
sentence defendants is not to be lightly condemned as impractical or
inexpedient. Judges to-day depend primarily for such information as
they require upon those whose public duty it is to oversee the prisons,
and the courts are also governed by the law in committing prisoners.
“It might be expedient to give judges a wider discretion in disposing
of persons convicted of crime, and then require them to make sufficient
investigation of every public institution to enable them to use their
discretion wisely.
“The average judge is a man of keen perception, and if he has been long
on the bench, he has acquired in his experience an accurate conception
of the criminal mind, and an idea of how it may be most effectively
influenced.
“Doubtless if one of the judges of the Superior Court passed a few days
at any one of the penal or corrective institutions of the State, he
could see things that had escaped the notice of those who have grown
familiar with conditions, either by association or by brief visits.
Some very valuable suggestions for improvement might result.
“We have many investigators who are concerned with the boy and man in
confinement. The Board of Parole, a new commission, was created for the
purpose of securing to the deserving a conditional release from prison.
“The Executive Council, when passing on the question of pardon, goes
carefully into the prisoner’s past, the circumstances of the crime for
which he was sentenced, his conduct in prison, and then weighs the
chances of his becoming a law-abiding and industrious member of the
community if liberated. Few men so released have again offended.
“It is logical that if the body authorized to grant a pardon is so
zealous in the interest of the prisoner and the community alike, the
judicial authority who fixes the penalty and indicates the institution
of punishment in specific instances should be equally well informed
of the possible consequences of the sentence to the prisoner. The
administration of strict justice might be aided by a more intimate
acquaintance with the character of our jails on the part of the
judges.”