The journal of prison discipline and philanthropy (New series, No. 57), March, 1918Pennsylvania Prison Society
History
The journal of prison discipline and philanthropy (New series, No. 57), March, 1918
Pennsylvania Prison Society
Charities -- Periodicals; Prisons -- Periodicals
In 1911 the law was amended to apply to convicts of the State when
sent to the penitentiary or to the county jail. It was further amended
by striking out the one-fourth provision and vesting the authority to
determine the maximum and minimum entirely in the Court, except that
the maximum was not to be greater than the law for any particular
offence may prescribe. The Court has power by this law to make the
minimum sentence any time at all to within one day of the maximum. A
convict whose offence by statute may be punished by an imprisonment
of twenty years could have a minimum sentence fixed at any time from
one day to nineteen years, eleven months and twenty-nine days. There
were four prisoners at the Eastern Penitentiary at the time the last
report was made whose maximum was twenty years and whose minimum was
the same lacking one day. There were thirty-eight prisoners sentenced
to a maximum of twenty years whose minimum was eighteen years or more.
According to the old law of commutation for good behavior, every
one of these prisoners would have been entitled to freedom on good
behavior at the end of twelve years and three months. This law of
commutation for satisfactory conduct had been in vogue for fifty years
and we have not learned that the judiciary of the State had issued any
remonstrance. The number according to the last report whose maximum
was twenty years was 86. These under old law of commutation might be
released in 12 years, 3 months. Of these 86, under present law, 55 will
remain longer than under commutation. And under present law, 31 may
be released earlier than under commutation. It is the inequality of
sentences which has produced dissatisfaction. We have confidence in the
judiciary of the Commonwealth, but we know that they differ in regard
to time of expiation. How could it be otherwise? It might be supposed
that judges might welcome an opportunity to place the responsibility
of determining the time of release, or of ascertaining when a convict
is ready to resume the duties of citizenship, upon some judicious body
of men or women chosen with regard to their special fitness for such a
responsible task.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account