This was all done to decide whether they would put him in the kitchen, in the printing shop, on the farm, or in the school, or what they would do with him. I thought, "Here I had this man before me for 5 minutes and had a report by a very able probation officer, and had to decide how many years to give him; and these people had 30 times the information I had in deciding where to put him to work, whether one kind of work or another."

I decided that the sort of information they had would be a tremendous help to me, and so I tried to get it. I said, "Would you please help me in these cases?" Under the law now I am limited to 60 days, and that is not enough.

Mr. WILLIS. What worries me about this trial period or confinement before final sentence is imposed is this: Just assume that you as a presiding judge desire to avail yourself of a confinement of 2 years, and you do that because as a human being you feel he deserves to be punished, and punished an awfully long time, but you do not want to be mean about it, so you avail yourself of the authority to send him up there for 90 days.

That fellow is not a fool. Is he not likely to be on good behavior for 90 days?

Judge LAWS. Yes, he is. There is no question about that. Of course, the answer to that probably is not only that they are getting a lot by observing him, but they can get a lot more information from outside sources than the probation officer could get.

Not only that, but those penologists and those men are pretty apt in spotting malingerers, just like they are when they try to feign insanity. Those men are experienced. They know convicts much better than some of us judges, especially those who have not tried criminal cases and have not studied the subject matter. We know that they are going to try to behave. They talk pretty nicely to probation officers. Of course, they know they are being considered. We do not expect that we can work out any absolutely perfect system, but it is believed these reports from penal institutions will be most helpful in

some cases.

I would like to say to you that I only remember one instance that I had a report from the penal institution, in which the defendant did not measure up to the appraisal of those at the prison.

It is the type of case where I would not know whether to give the man 2 years or 10 years, or whether to give him a minimum of 1 year, or to give him a minimum of 3 years, but their help is tremendous. They are seasoned men over there. They watch them at play, they watch them at their work, they overhear their conversations. They watch them in everything they do, and they get an idea in certain cases whether they are really good or really bad.

They get them in unguarded moments, and I think it would be tremendously helpful to us. It is a help that we could have and put into effect now if we had enough time, and if we had enough authority to do it. There are very few judges that try it out. I do it. I say that I do it because Lorton is nearby-it is less than 75 miles but it would be very helpful if we had these diagnostic studies set up.

I do not want to belabor the point before you because I know you have other witnesses, but I would like to say to you that every

thing that we have approved in these bills is not at any point mandaning a judge to do something different from what he does now. He has all the rights that he has now. It simply adds privileges to kim in an effort to solve very difficult problems.

Mr. WILLIS. I think that is a good selling point.

Judge Laws. Yes, sir. I think so.

Judge Parker asked me to come to speak to his Judicial Conference on this topic about 3 or 4 months ago, before he died, of course. I had spoken before that group some 15 years ago on this very subject matter, and a good deal of opposition in some respects had

arisen.

I was completely amazed at the unanimity with which they now accepted these proposals. The enthusiasm of the judges was striking in that circuit which, as you know, takes in a good part of the States in the eastern part of the Nation.

I would like, therefore, to conclude that these bills, if passed with the amendments we have indicated, I think, will go a long way toward solving one of the most difficult problems which confronts a judge.

I would like to leave with you, for such use as you would like to make of it, one of the reports that our subcommittee made to the Judicial Conference of the United States on this entire subject matter, which at the end contains a printed copy, which I suppose you have, of the survey Mr. Celler made of the sentiment of all the judges in the Nation.

I do not know whether you want to make that a part of the record or not.

Mr. WILLIS. That will be received as a part of the file.

Judge LAWS. I want to thank you so much for listening to this rather zealous point of view that I have. I am convinced, from a study of many years, that this legislation is badly needed.

Mr. WILLIS. When was our present system of rigid sentencing put on the books?

Judge Laws. I cannot give you that exact time. It has been in from the beginning, I think, as Mr. Bennett said.

Mr. WILLIS. Why has not a proposal like this been presented before? Judge Laws. We presented a proposal somewhat along this line by the Parker committee back in 1941, but we made the mistake of mandating the judges too much, and we ran our heads into stone.

We were able to get the Youth Corrections Act passed by Congress, but we were defeated onthe adult program because we had too many mandates. That is why, as I say, these bills have a better selling point.

There is one question Mr. Cramer asked this morning, and I would like to tell you because I am going to have to come back on that. He asked about the District of Columbia.

Mr. WILLIS. He asked about Alaska, too.

Judge Laws. I cannot tell you about Alaska too well, but Mr. Bennett can tell you. There is no doubt that we should be in all of them.

The reason we are not is this: I started out my testimony by telling you that, as our United States district court is organized, we have both State jurisdiction and United States jurisdiction. We have a

very heavy caseload of these State cases-murder cases, rape cases, robbery cases, and so forth.

Mr. WILLIS. You mean common law crimes?

Judge Laws. That is right. We have local problems of administration, and Congress has provided a different parole board for us from the other that governs the United States courts generally.

There are some administrative terms and contributions by the Commissioners of the District of Columbia that would have to be worked out applicable to the District, that do not apply to the Nation as a whole; and we did not think we ought to complicate the national picture by sticking the District of Columbia in at this time.

They left us out of the Youth Corrections Act for that reason, but once the Youth Corrections Act was passed nationally, I persisted with Congress until I got it made applicable to the District of Columbia; but that was by a separate bill, when the administrative programs were worked out.

I promise you to be quite as persistent later on in respect to this bill, because, certainly, we cannot have the Capital of the United States left out of this, if the rest of the Nation is included.

I believe that will explain what Mr. Cramer asked, at least so far as the District of Columbia is concerned. If we encumber that with all that detail with the Commissioners, we just encumber you with a millstone.

Thank you very much. I am afraid I have taken too much time. • Mr. WILLIS. We were delighted to have you, Judge Laws. (Report submitted by Judge Bolitha Laws follows:)

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES

The subcommittee appointed in February 1957 to consider the problem of unjust disparities in sentences imposed by judges in criminal cases begs to submit its second report as follows:

On September 13, 1957, the subcommittee submitted its first written report to the full Committee on Administration of Criminal Law. The chairman, Chief Judge Parker, informed the Judicial Conference of the United States at its special session on March 13-14, 1957, as to the submission of the report and recommended that further study be given to the matter by the subcommittee, in connection with the Advisory Corrections Council appointed by the Attorney General of the United States, and that further report be made with regard thereto. The chairman further recommended that there be approved the following proposed legislation: House Joint Resolution 424, to establish institutes and joint councils on sentencing procedures; House Joint Resolution 425, to authorize the court, in sentencing a prisoner, to fix an earlier date when the prisoner shall become eligible for parole; and H. R. 8923, to include under the Federal Youth Corrections Act persons under the age of 26 years at the time of conviction. The Judicial Conference authorized continuation of the study and approved the bills as recommended.

Pursuant to this authorization, the subcommittee has given further study to the subject of disparity of sentences and has held conferences with a subcommittee of the Advisory Corrections Council appointed by the Attorney General of the United States consisting of Deputy Attorney General Lawrence Walsh, Director of United States Prisons James V. Bennett, chairman of the United States Parole Board George Reed, and Director of the Administrative Office of United States Courts Warren Olney III. Your subcommittee is able to report substantial agreement between its members and those of the subcommittee of the Attorney General's Advisory Corrections Council in respect of pending proposals.

The problem of unjust disparities in sentences has been under intensive study for many years and concern over such disparities has mounted to a point at which remedial legislation seems clearly warranted.

Further consideration was given to the above-mentioned bills introduced in the United States House of Representatives in light of the House Judiciary Committee's report, published February 15, 1958, containing a survey of opinion by a majority of the Federal judiciary and other persons experienced in fields associated with the administration of justice. The Judiciary Committee's report clearly reveals that Federal judges preponderantly favor legislation which would more fully equip them to minimize the present sentence disparities.

Upon the further study made, your subcommittee suggests amendments to the bills previously approved:

1. House Joint Resolution 424-The establishment of institutes and joint councils for the development of objectives, standards, procedures, and policies to be followed in the sentencing of persons convicted of offenses against the United States

It is believed the establishment of institutes and joint councils, as provided in House Joint Resolution 424, would constitute a significant step forward. It would represent a worthy contribution to the administration of justice, and would tend to eliminate some inconsistencies in present sentencing. Institutes or joint councils would serve as a forum in which various points of view would be expressed and examined frankly. Judges could secure the opinions of other judges and also of other persons who are experienced in fields related to the administration of justice. This bill and its objective has received overwhelming support from the 195 Federal judges who wrote to Chairman Celler. Your subcommittee, noting that the bill provides for the Attorney General to submit recommendations from time to time for the establishment of such institutes and joint councils, believes that the bill should also authorize their establishment by the Judicial Conference of the United States, so they may be held in the event the Attorney General fails to make provision for them and it is believed they are advisable. At the end of section (a) of this bill, your subcommittee recommends that the following sentence be added:

***The chief judge of each United States circuit court of appeals may at any time submit similar recommendations to the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts for the consideration of the Judicial Conference of the United States."

Your subcommittee recommends that this bill be supported by the Judicial Conference of the United States with the minor modification above mentioned. 2. House Joint Resolution 425-Fixing eligibility for parole at time of sentencing

The additional flexibility in the determination of parole eligibility dates received substantial support from Federal judges, according to Chairman Celler's survey. Your subcommittee believes that this resolution, if enacted, will mitigate the problem of sentence disparities by permitting judges wider discretion in the formulation of sentences and a sharing of responsibility for determining the amount of time to be served. Your subcommittee has been informed that the Federal Government is one of only 11 jurisdictions among the States of the Nation which are still using a system of definite sentences. Most jurisdictions, particularly those with larger populations and a greater volume of crime, use some type of indeterminate sentence, usually a form in which both a minimum and a maximum sentence are imposed by the court within statutory limits, and thereafter some executive agency determines how long the offender needs institutional treatment. Your subcommittee decided that no fundamental, far-reaching change should be made in existing Federal sentencing procedures at this time, but that the alternatives open to the sentencing judge should be expanded. For this reason, the provisions of this bill are considered highly desirable. It will be noted that under this bill, the sentencing power remains as at present a function and responsibility of the trial court, but his authority is broadened.

The bill as now drafted provides the court with two additional alternatives in determining parole eligibility dates: (1) he may determine any eligibility date up to one-third of the maximum sentence imposed by the court, or (2) he may impose only the maximum sentence, in which event the Board of Parole would be authorized to release a prisoner at any time. Your subcommittee recommends the language contained in the present form of the bill be rewritten to reflect these alternatives more clearly. This may be accomplished by changing the last part of the proposed new section 4208 as indicated by the italics, as follows:

§ 4208. Fixing eligibility for parole at time of sentencing.

"(a) Upon entering a judgment of conviction, except where the death penalty is mandatory, if the court having jurisdiction to impose sentence is of the opinion that the ends of justice and the best interest of the public require that the defendant be sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, the court may designate in the sentence imposed a time when the prisoner may become eligible for parole, which time may be less than, but shall not be more than, the one-third limitation now provided in section 4202 of this title, or the court may fix only the maximum sentence to be served, in which event the prisoner may be released at such time as the Board of Parole may determine."

3. H. R. 8923—Extending Youth Corrections Act

Your subcommittee gave a great deal of thought and discussion to the advisability of extending the Federal Youth Corrections Act to cover convicted offenders aged 25 and under, as provided in H. R. 8923. It noted this proposal had received the support of a strong majority of the Federal judges who expressed their opinions to Chairman Celler. However, your subcommittee concluded that the bill, House Joint Resolution 425, if enacted, would itself provide some benefits which might accrue from an extension of the Youth Corrections Act, and that more experience with the Youth Act is required before its provisions are widened to the extent provided in H. R. 8923. Accordingly your subcommittee recommends that instead of adopting a separate act of Congress as proposed by H. R. 8923 the proposed House Joint Resolution 425 incorporate an additional provision following section (a) authorizing the judge to make greater use of the Youth Corrections Act procedures and facilities in selected cases. We recommend therefore an additional provision in House Joint Resolution 425, as follows:

"§ 4208. ***

"(b) Upon entering a judgment of conviction, the court may, in the cases of defendants 25 years of age and under, impose sentence under the provisions of the Federal Youth Corrections Act, if in the opinion of the court they are suitable for the rehabilitative treatment provided by the Federal Youth Corrections Act."

The paragraph numbering and indexing of the remaining portion of section 4208 in House Joint Resolution 425 should be changed accordingly.

Your subcommittee also believes that, where indicated, the sentencing judge before imposing final sentence should be able to receive, if he deems it advisable, a more complete study of the defendant than is available in a probation officer's report. Facilities for such studies are presently in existence, but authority is lacking to the judge to reduce or change a sentence after 2 months, which may not afford ample time to complete such study. This diagnosis and observation would be extremely helpful to the judge in making disposition in certain types of cases, especially where some difficult medical, psychiatric, sex, or rehabilitative problem may be involved. Accordingly, your subcommittee recommends that an additional section in the appropriate chapter of House Joint Resolution 425 be inserted substantially as follows:

"Upon the imposition of sentence the court may sentence in accordance with other existing provisions of law, or at its option, may impose a tentative sentence to imprisonment generally, which shall be deemed to be for the maximum term prescribed by law; in such latter event the defendant shall be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for a complete study of the defendant as described in subsection (b) hereof, except that a report based on this study, together with any recommendations which the Director believes would be helpful in determining the disposition of the case, will be furnished to the court within three months unless the court grants time for further study not to exceed an additional three months. After receiving such reports and recommendations, the court may in its discretion: (a) reduce the sentence or (b) place the defendant on probation as provided by section 3651 of this title." Your subcommittee also gave attention to section (c) of this bill which authorizes the Board of Parole to discharge unconditionally a parolee before the expiration of the maximum sentence. The subcommittee endorses the provision which makes it unnecessary for the Board of Parole to retain jurisdiction over a prisoner long after he has proved his ability to conduct himself as a law-abiding citizen in the community. However, your subcommittee questions the constitutionality of the clause reading, "which unconditional discharge shall automatically set aside the conviction and the Board shall issue to such