Those considerations have led the Commission to the conclusion that the whole subject of the suspended sentence and probation in this Commonwealth should be thoroughly studied in order that the principles that should govern it may be carefully defined and its procedure worked out, supervised and put on a uniform basis. New York and other States have for this purpose created a permanent probation board or commission and the success which has attended their labors suggests the institution of a similar body in this Commonwealth. (_b_) The indeterminate sentence, which made its appearance in this Commonwealth in the law of May 10, 1909, has passed through several phases to a state in which its purpose is almost completely defeated. In its original form it provided that the maximum term to be imposed upon a convict who should be sentenced to imprisonment in either the Eastern or the Western Penitentiaries should not exceed the maximum time prescribed by law and that the minimum term when not fixed by law, should not exceed one-fourth of the maximum time. This law was amended by an Act approved June 19, 1911, striking out the restriction as to the minimum sentence, thus leaving to the courts complete discretion to fix the minimum to be served at any period short of the maximum. Many of the courts have in frequent instances virtually nullified the indeterminate sentence principle by imposing minimum sentences so excessive as to bring the judicial office into disrepute. Sentences of from 18 years to 20 and from 19 years to 20 have been common, and there have been cases so grotesque as sentences of 19 years 11 months, or of 19 years, 11 months and 29 days to 20 years, of 23 years and 3 months to 25 years and of 27 to 28 years. These are only the more extreme illustrations of a practice which has been common enough to justify a demand for a law which will result in greater uniformity in the matter of imposing sentences for crime. At its best the maximum-minimum form of the indeterminate sentence is an unsatisfactory compromise between the ideal aim of penologists and the traditional attitude of the courts, which cling tenaciously to their ancient prerogative of “making the punishment fit the crime.” That the power of determining the period of imprisonment requisite to meet the demands of justice and the interests of society may safely be confided to other than judicial hands has been conceded in the case of all offenders entitled to commitment to reformatories, who are sentenced to an indeterminate term limited only by the maximum fixed by law, or, in the case of minors, to the attainment of their majority, and who may be released on parole in the discretion of the boards of managers of the institutions to which they are committed. It is only in the case of hardened offenders or of those guilty of certain major offenses that a minimum sentence is imposed.