Page images
PDF
EPUB

coming, to develop new acquaintances and associations to substitute for the old addict pals, to reestablish normal family relationships, and to face the reality of the rejecting social situation with some degree of fortitude.

While the addict is in the hospital, the probation officer has the opportunity to be in touch with his family or his friends for the possibility of securing living quarters, the possibility of securing employment leads; he can look up his old employers to see if they will reemploy him.

Hopefully he will find some lay adviser who would be interested in this person and would be a first friend in the community, who will not be judgmental, and will not immediately accuse the addict of being a fallen person who is not worthy of consideration.

Yesterday Dr. Lowry stated that parolees, probably, because they are released with a definite plan from the hospital, have shown the greatest success record. That has been our own experience, and I am sorry that I cannot quote statistics. I can get those statistics if the committee wants them, to show that, by and large, parolees violate the conditions of their parole less often than do probationers or people who are under the condition of released supervision of the parole board, which is a different kind of release.

Parolees are granted a special privilege in that they are considered for an early release from the institution or from the hospital after one-third of their prison term has elapsed, and if the constructive plan can be suggested either by friends in the community or the social agency so that it is known that if the man will not be released from the hospital into a vacuum because of this, and also, I believe, because of the psychological factors involved in parole, where the parolee knows that he can be returned to the institution almost immediately without a court hearing, without a consulting of a lawyer, without the privilege of bail, and can be rehospitalized, the parolee knows that and, therefore, takes less chances with his liberty than he might if he were on probation or under some other form of release supervision. In our office we try

Senator DANIEL. So you would recommend that system over the probation system?

Mr. SAYLER. We would, Senator; and Mr. Kuznesof's figures show why we do that.

We have had considerable experience with the probation for a cure system, and we have found that, first of all, the probationers feel like they are accepting a right and not a privilege-probation is a privileged kind of disposition in a court.

We find that when the probationers do relapse to drugs, it is necessary for us to arrest them, charge them with a violation of probation. They have the privilege of bail, they have the privilege of an attorney; sometimes we find that we are the ones who have to prove that they are addicted, and we are the ones on trial.

We have found that in supervision, the type of control which can be exercised by the parole board is easier to administer, and has a stronger punch, if I might put it that way, than the type of control which may be exercised on probation.

When we get a person, any person, for either type of supervision, they are given a set of conditions of behavior.

You probably are quite familiar with these things. I have here a set of conditions of probation which are standard for the entire Nation, which tell the man the conditions under which he is granted his liberty.

Senator DANIEL. May we place those in the record at this point? Mr. SAYLER. Yes, you may.

(The document referred to follows:)

[blocks in formation]

In accordance with authority conferred by the United States Probation Law, you have been placed on probation on this date,

by the Hon.

period of
United States District Judge, sitting in and for this District Court at

for a

It is the order of the Court that you shall comply with the following general and special conditions of probation. The general conditions are as follows: (a) Refrain from the violation of any state and federal penal laws. (b) Live a clean, honest and temperate life. (c) Keep good company and good hours. (d) Keep away from all undesirable places. (e) Work regularly. When out of work, notify your probation officer at once. (f) Do not leave or remain away from the city or town where you reside without permission of the probation officer. Notify your probation officer at once if you intend to change your address. (g) Contribute regularly to the support of those for whose support you are legally responsible. (h) Follow the probation officer's instructions and advice. The Probation Law gives him authority to instruct and advise you regarding your recreational and social activities. (i) Report promptly on the dates set forth. If for any unavoidable reason you are unable to do so, communicate with your probation officer without delay.

The special conditions ordered by the Court are as follows: Subject to the standing probation order of this Court. (See other side.) You may not serve as an informer during your probation.

You are hereby advised that under the law the Court may at any time revoke probation for cause, modify the conditions of probation, and reduce or extend the period of probation. You are subject to arrest by the probation officer without a warrant. At any time during the period of probation or within 5 years from the date you were placed on probation the court may issue a warrant and revoke probation for a violation occurring during the period of probation.

The Court has placed you on probation, believing that if you sincerely try to obey and live up to the conditions of your probation, your attitude and conduct will improve both to the benefit of the United States and of yourself.

You will report as follows: (Signed)

(Probationer)

(Probation officer)

AT A STATED TERM OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HELD IN AND FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, IN THE UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE, IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, CITY OF NEW YORK ON THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 1932

Present: The honorables, John C. Knox, Henry W. Goddard, William Bondy, Frank J. Coleman, John M. Woolsey, Francis G. Caffey, Alfred C. Coxe, Robert P. Patterson.

ORDER M 11-183

IN THE MATTER OF GENERAL CONDITIONS OF PROBATION whereexecution of sentence in criminal cases is suspended.

71515-56-pt. 5-24

Due deliberation having been had, it is

ORDERED, that effective June 7, 1932, the following shall be the conditions of probation applicable to all persons placed on probation by this Court.

1. The probationer shall not violate any State or Federal penal law.

2. He shall live a clean, honest and temperate life.

3. He shall not frequent undesirable places and localities, nor shall he associate with undesirable persons.

4. He shall seek and continue in steady employment and shall immediately notify the probation officer of any change in or cessation of employment. 5. Upon change of residence, he shall notify the probation officer.

6. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of this Court without permission of the probation officer.

7. He shall contribute regularly to the support of those whom he is legally bound to support.

8. He shall follow the probation officer's instructions and advice regarding his recreational and social activities.

9. He shall report at such times and places as the probation officer shall direct. 10. He shall obey such other conditions as may be imposed by the probation officer to insure compliance with the foregoing provisions in paragraphs 1 to 9 inclusive.

Acceptance of probation by the defendant shall constitute acceptance of the conditions hereinabove set forth.

JNO C. KNOX, U. S. D. J.

HENRY W. GODDARD.

WM. BONDY.

FRANK J. COLEMAN.

JOHN M. WOOLSEY.

FRANCIS G. CAFFEY.

ALFRED C. COXE.

ROBERT P. PATTERSON.

Filed U. S. District Court.

Mr. SAYLER. When a person is released from a hospital on parole, he is given a very similar set of conditions. These conditions are reasonable, they are only what are expected of a good citizen who is behaving in a normal way.

We do not expect perfection. When we have to charge a person with violation of the conditions of his probation, it is because he has deviated so much from the normal that we can no longer take the responsibility of allowing him to be on the street.

That usually happens in the case of an addict when we discover that he has returned to the use of narcotics.

Senator DANIEL. Wait a minute, you said that usually happens when?

Mr. SAYLER. In the case of an addict, in the case of a person, who has been known to use narcotics.

Senator DANIEL. You mean by that, you think that whenever the addicts go back on to the drugs that they are no longer safe to be on the streets?

Mr. SAYLER. We have always felt they had to take them off the streets immediately. First of all, for their own protection, because we know that an addict cannot leave our office if we discover him to be addicted or to use narcotics, he cannot leave our office but that within a matter of hours he must violate the law in order to secure his supply, and we feel, as employees of the court, we cannot allow a person to go out and become a law violator when we know that is what he must do.

Senator DANIEL. Is there any other reason why you think a person under narcotic drugs should not be out on the streets?

Mr. SAYLER. Well, yes; it was demonstrated here before the committee this afternoon, the danger of association and contagion.

We know the addicts associate with each other. A man who needs a shot or a woman who needs a shot will hunt up his pal, who knows he is addicted, and beg a shot from him. There is always this attendant danger of contagion.

Senator DANIEL. Have you found that addicts will also spread the addiction to other people in the families who have not previously been addicted?

Mr. SAYLER. We have found that addicts who have buddies who do not use it, as was demonstrated this afternoon, are anxious to have company in their misery, if I may use that old cliche.

Senator DANIEL. You find some of them spreading their addiction to others without the profit motive in mind?

Mr. SAYLER. Purely as a matter of companionship, they like other people to have the sensation.

Senator DANIEL. Right at this point, what is your idea about the proposed clinic by which narcotics would be dispensed legally to addicts?

Mr. SAYLER. We, in our office, and I think I can speak for all of the people here, are definitely opposed to any idea that would grant sustaining shots to an active addict.

Senator DANIEL. You think they would be a danger to society to have these addicts out on the streets?

Mr. SAYLER. Definitely.

Senator DANIEL. Is that the opinion of all of the representatives here of your office?

Mr. SAYLER. Yes.

To identify myself, my name is Arch E. Sayler. I am the deputy chief probation officer in this court. I have been a probation officer here for 18 years.

Senator DANIEL. This is the Southern District Court of New York? Mr. SAYLER. Yes.

This is Mr. Morris Kuznesof. He is a probation officer, and has been for 411⁄2 years.

On my left is Mr. Leon De Kalb, who has been here 12 years.
Senator DANIEL. His title?

Mr. SAYLER. He is a United States probation officer in this court; and on my far left is Miss Evelyn Panella, and she is a United States probation officer, and she has been here 7 years.

She has assigned to her the caseload of all women probationers and parolees who are under our jurisdiction, and she also has had considerable experience with people who have been addicted or who have had treatment for addiction or do become addicted while on probation. Senator DANIEL. And the opinion just stated by Mr. Sayler concerning this legalized dispensing of drugs is the opinion of all of you present here today?

Mr. KUZNESOF. Yes.

Mr. DE KALB. Yes.
Miss PANELLA. Yes.

Mr. SAYLER. The only possible exception that we have ever known, in discussing this very thing at lunch today, one of our officers stated, and this is in our caseload of 30,000 cases, one of our officers stated that he remembers one case where he made an investigation after a

man had been brought in to the court, and discovered that this man had been a, what we might call, quiet, noncriminal addict for many years, and had only come to the attention of the authorities when his original source of supply-and it had supplied him over the years-died, and he went out to find a new connection.

Apparently he had had a good job for many years, and had maintained himself on a maintenance dosage, perfectly quietly, had never had any contact with anybody else.

That is one case out of 30,000 that we know of who are on duty in the office today.

So we cannot say definitely that there are no cases when a person might not quietly use narcotics and stay out of the hands of the law.

I believe I can say, without being contradicted by anybody, that the balance of our experience is that these people cannot stay out of trouble once they are on the drugs, and it has been the policy of our office for the entire time I have been here, which is 18 years, immediately we discover or have any symptoms or any hint that a person was again using drugs, we take steps immediately to have that person examined, either arrest them and place them over in West Street or sometimes we take them on very rare occasions we would take them, to a private doctor, but we try to get treatment immediately. Senator DANIEL. That is withdrawal treatment? Mr. SAYLER. Well, sometimes it is "cold turkey." Senator DANIEL. "Cold turkey" or withdrawal.

Mr. SAYLER. We take them off the drug just as fast as we find out about it.

Senator DANIEL. Did you have anything else to place in the record, Mr. Sayler?

Mr. SAYLER. I did not have, Senator, but I will see that you do get the statistics on the number of people in our present caseload who have been at one time or another narcotics users.

Of course, they do not stay on the caseload after they go back to it. We close the case out and see that the person either gets to Lexington or gets some other kind of treatment.

Senator DANIEL. Yes.

Mr. SAYLER. There is one thing I would like to say, in furtherance of my testimony, and that is this: There has been-I do not want to make it sound as though there has been no followup attempt on the part of Lexington, and the people who were testifying here yesterday did not mention this, and I do not know, I hope I am not out of order to mention it, but over the past 2 or 3 years there have been 2 social workers, two psychiatric social workers, who at one time were attached to the staff at Lexington, here in the city, who act as free consultants, voluntary consultants, to the people who have been discharged from Lexington, entirely on a voluntary basis.

We have talked with these people. We understand that they do have a relative amount of success in contacting the former patients, but there is no mandatory requirement that the patient go to them, and there is no requirement that the patient even tell them the truth about his situation.

There is that little voluntary followup here in the city as far as Lexington graduates are concerned.

I might also say that the resources that are available to former addicts and former patients are very limited.

« PreviousContinue »