Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

The Commission also recommends as in the past that there be the same central State supervision of the work of parole officers as is established for the work of probation officers. We supported a bill introduced last year by the Commission of Prisons to delegate this supervision for the purpose of developing and improving parole work to the State Probation Commission. We believe that in this way needed co-ordination between the work of the parole officers and the probation officers can be best brought about and the parole work extended and improved.

CHILDREN'S COURTS

New York State affords a laboratory for the study of various plans for establishing and conducting children's courts. All kinds of courts from the entirely separate Children's Court of Buffalo presided over by a judge who gives his entire time to it, to the criminal police court in some of the smaller cities and villages where children are not even given a separate trial but are treated to all intents the same as adults, are to be found in this State. Two counties-Monroe and Ontario-have established county children's courts as parts of the county court.

A special study of the workings of the Monroe County Children's Court has been made during the past year. Our general conclusions are that the plan has great advantages in securing effective dealing with the children brought before it, far more effective than they could obtain in the courts of the justices of the peace and the village justices or the city magistrates. The court has wider powers. It also has proper facilities, including a detention home and especially trained probation officers. On the other hand, some objection has been found to the court in that it is too far removed from the homes of the children, causing some hardship to parents, and others concerned, in bringing the children to the county seat at Rochester, and also, what is more serious, in causing some cases to be neglected on account of the difficulty of bringing them to Rochester. This objection is especially valid in the case of what appears to be the less serious offenses, such as truancy and incorrigibility. The Commission believes that these objections can be effectively removed by having the court go to the people, so to speak. In other words, that the children's court

1

might be held in a number of different parts of the county. In a county as large as Monroe, it would seem that the children's court judge might of advantage give his entire time to the work. Possibly in these ways, better co-operation could be established with the local justices of the peace, constables and attendance officers so that there should be no neglect or delay in bringing the children to court. The probation officers of the children's court should work in all parts of the county and should seek to co-operate with the local authorities in every way possible.

In the other county in which a children's part of the county court has been established with exclusive jurisdiction over children's cases, there appears to have been less difficulty in reaching the cases needing attention in various parts of the county. The court has been held in cities located in the two ends of the county. To some extent, however, the same objections have been raised in Ontario county, which the Commission believes could be avoided by the more frequent meeting of the court in the city of Geneva and also at times in other parts of the county.

It seems highly desirable that children's courts should handle cases of adult contributory delinquency. It would be well if every case involving a child could be handled in a children's court. If, as suggested for Monroe county, a separate county children's court judge could be provided in all counties in which the work justifies the full time services of such a judge, contributory delinquency cases could then be transferred from the local courts to the county children's court.

The Commission introduced and supported an amendment which became a part of the Judiciary Ar.icle of the proposed new Constitution, rejected by the voters last fall, which would have provided that all children's courts should have full equity jurisdiction. This amendment would have tended to standardize and broaden the power of the children's courts, removing as far as possible the vestiges of criminal procedure which now obtain in all of our courts. It is hoped that this amendment may subsequently be enacted separately.

There is urgent need for the amendment and codification of the laws of the State relating to the handling of juveniles so as to establish a uniform procedure as far removed as possible from the criminal for the handling of children in all parts of the State.

DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURTS

Special courts or parts of courts for the handling of domestic relations cases are maintained only in the boroughs of Manhattan, Brooklyn and the Bronx, and in Buffalo. It is desirable that in all large cities these cases be tried in special courts, or at least in separate sessions. In the larger cities a judge should give all his time to these cases and become expert in handling them. What is perhaps still more important, special probation officers should be employed to investigate and when possible adjust these cases out of court. This is now done in many instances in the domestic relations courts of New York city.

It is now generally agreed that the proceedings in cases of desertion, non-support and other domestic relations cases should be modified from the strictly criminal and made in some respects similar to the handling of juvenile cases. Where it is possible to effect the ends of social and family welfare without formal trial and conviction this should be done. Under the special provisions of the Inferior Criminal Courts Acts, cases are now adjusted in this manner in New York city. They are placed on probation and required to provide for the support of families without formal conviction. To modify the procedure and to enlarge the powers of domestic relations courts the Commission has urged an amendment to the Constitution granting to such courts full equity jurisdiction.

The question has come up during the past year as to whether men or women should be employed as probation officers in domestic relations cases, particularly those of non-support. The Commission is convinced after studying the work of both men and women officers that in general the male officer is more successful in dealing with the non-supporting husband on probation. The woman officer is often very effective in advising and helping the wife or the mother who not infrequently is also to blame for the desertion of the husband and for the domestic ructions. In the Domestic Relations Courts in New York city, women probation officers who formerly handled most of the cases have been largely replaced by men to the betterment of the system. Women officers have, however, been retained to meet and advise with the many women who come into the court as complainants and also, of course, to handle all cases of women who are placed on probation.

In the City Court of Buffalo and also in the Erie county probation office women probation officers have been employed for the first time during the past year. In both offices they effectively assist the male probation officers in the domestic relations cases by visiting in the homes and advising and helping the wives and children. Many of these domestic relations cases are so difficult of solution that the help of both a man and woman probation officer is advantageous. Women, perhaps, better than men, are able to get to the bottom of the domestic difficulty and assist in bringing about a reconciliation, in suitable cases.

THE DANGERS OF PROBATION WRONGLY USED

In the searching analysis and constructive criticism of probation presented by Governor Charles S. Whitman at the annual State Conference of Probation Officers at Albany last November, the Governor, while endorsing the principle and rejoicing in its growth and success, pointed out certain dangers which all concerned in the extension and use of the probation system would do well to heed. Urging the need for firmness and decision in handling all offenders against the law, he said:

"The whole object of the treatment of an offender, whether by probation or institution, is to build up in him orderly, lawabiding habits. How can we expect him to hold himself well in hand, to live up to his promises, to be consistent, if the State itself in dealing with him fails to show these qualities? If the State, as represented in its courts, shows flabbiness, uncertainty, indecision, in common parlance, bluffing' in its dealings with probationers, how can we expect them to be free from these qualities in their dealings with us?" The Governor condemned emphatically, as we all should, any possible misuse of probation through favoritism. He said,

"Nothing tends to bring the probation system into disrepute so quickly as any inclination on the part of the court to use it as a cloak to speak plainly, for favoritism."

The misuse of probation on the part of courts and judges whose motives are above suspicion, but whose judgment or knowledge

of the cases is not above criticism, was pointed out as quite as serious an evil as the deliberate misuse of the system, probably because a far commoner evil.

Much depends upon the efficient work of the probation officer, but quite as much upon the right selection of cases by the judge. In this connection the Governor said:

"It is impossible for the probation system to be thoroughly efficient and to fully protect the interests of the community unless the courts do their part with careful discrimination and with consistency and decision. There are certain classes of persons who obviously are not suitable for probation. It is a travesty to place hardened and convicted offenders upon probation, when there is no indication of any probability of change in their behavior."

One of the most serious dangers to probation is non-enforcement of its terms and conditions and in the failure to return probationers to court who do not live up to those conditions. In regard to this vital matter the Governor said:

"It is not desirable indeed that every technical violation of the terms of an offender's release should be dealt with summarily and result in his commitment to a reformatory or penal institution. The circumstances of the violation, the fact as to whether it is exceptional or habitual, the spirit of the probationer, his attitude toward the community, all should be taken into consideration; but when it is evident that he has failed to take probation seriously, when there is nothing in his conduct to really justify the belief that he is refraining from ways of life which will result in further offenses then it is essential if the probation system is to continue to possess the confidence of the community that the probation officer should report these facts to the court and that the court should act upon them with firmness and decision."

With the rapid growth of probation evils are likely to spring up, against which we must be on our guard. No greater service can be done the system than the pointing out of its defects and the

« EdellinenJatka »