One of the features of the probation system, as practiced during the
past year by Judge James A. Collins, of the City Court[2] of
Indianapolis, Indiana, has been the required “taking of the pledge” in
a number of cases of persons found guilty of drunkenness. In his
annual report for 1910 Judge Collins says:
“In all cases of first offenders charged with being drunk and in
those cases where the defendant had others dependent upon him for
support, the court has made it a condition on withholding the
judgment or suspending the sentence that the defendant take the
pledge for a period varying from six months to one year. At the
close of the year one hundred and one persons had taken the
pledge, and of this number all but ten had kept the same
faithfully. Eighteen of these were women, of whom all but three
are reported to have kept the pledge faithfully.”
Judge Collins has also set aside Wednesday afternoon exclusively for
the hearing of the cases of women and girls. Since the law provided
for no paid probation officers, and since it was desired that for the
separate trials of women and girls there be an adequate system of
investigation and supervision, the Local Council of Women guaranteed
the expenses of a woman probation officer.
The court has instituted also a “missionary box,” into which is put
all unclaimed money obtained in gambling raids. The funds so collected
have been used to furnish transportation for runaway boys and girls,
to provide necessaries for the destitute, and on several occasions to
return veterans to the Soldiers’ Home at Marion or at Lafayette.
One operation of sterilization for degeneracy was performed during the
year at the direction of the court.
Certain offenders have been allowed to pay their fines in installments.
“The old method of collecting money fines which compelled the
defendant to pay or replevy the same the moment he was fined was
always a source of great hardship on the poor. It was
unreasonable to expect a common laborer arrested late at night
and convicted in the morning to be prepared to settle with the
state. If he was unable to pay or make arrangements to have his
fine stayed for the statutory period, he was sent to prison, not
because the judge had given him a term of imprisonment, but
because he was poor, which is in effect imprisonment for debt.
“In those cases where a defendant had others dependent upon him
for support he has been released on his own recognizance and the
case held under advisement for thirty or sixty days, as the
circumstances seemed to justify, at the expiration of which time
he was required to report to the court that he had paid in the
amount designated as the fine and costs to be entered against
him.
“At the close of the year eight hundred and thirty persons had
been given an opportunity to pay their fines in this way. Of this
number 64 were re-arrested and committed for their failure to pay
their fine, and the affidavits in 32 other cases are held for
re-arrest. The balance lived up to their obligation with the
court, and paid in more than $7,100.
“This plan operates to the benefit of the defendant in several
ways: It saves him his employment; it saves his family from
humiliation and disgrace, as well as from the embarrassment
incident to imprisonment; but more than all it saves him his
self-respect. With but a single exception not one to whom this
opportunity has been given and who has paid his fine in full has
been in court a second time.”
Of the suspended sentence and the withheld judgment Judge Collins says:
“During the past year sentence has been suspended in two hundred
and thirty-six cases and judgment withheld in thirty-four hundred
and seventy-four. The majority of these were first offenders. In
those cases where the judgment was suspended the court has had to
set aside and commit the defendants in only two cases, and where
the judgment has been withheld less than two per cent have been
returned to court for a second or subsequent offense.”