To: The Commissioners. MARCH 21, 1932. In re: Senate bill No. 1155, entitled “A bill to establish a board of indeterminate sentence and parole for the District of Columbia and to determine its functions, and for other purposes." This report is supplemental to the report rendered the commissioners on this bill under date of March 1, 1932. The changes recommended by this office in that report were incorporated in House bill No. 10273. Since then there has been referred to me the memorandum of Mr. Sanford Bates, director of the bureau of prisons of the Department of Justice, suggesting certain changes in the House bill. I am in accord with all of these with two exceptions. In my opinion the bill does not impose upon the board the administrative duty of controlling the conduct of the paroled prisoner, but merely permits it to supervise such administrative duty. I believe in this respect the bill should not be changed. Nor do I believe the bill should be amended so as to require the revocation of the parole before a warrant is issued for the return of the paroled prisoner. It may be that word is received that the prisoner is about to leave the jurisdiction, in which event the warrant should issue forthwith. The delay in securing a meeting of the board to revoke the parole before the issuance of the warrant might prevent the arrest of the prisoner. I agree with Mr. Bates that the duties of the board may be so burdensome that the members thereof should be compensated for their time. However, I believe there are enough public spirited citizens in the District of Columbia willing to undertake this work without salary. Therefore, in view of the present financial conditions, I recommend that no provision be inserted in this bill for the payment of compensation to the members of the board. In order to meet Mr. Bates' suggestion with respect to section 5, I recommend the same be amended to read as follows instead of as suggested in my former opinion: "SEC. 5. If said board of indeterminate sentence and parole, or any member thereof, shall have reliable information that a prisoner has violated his parole, said board, or any member thereof, at any time within the term or terms of the prisoner's sentence, may issue a warrant to any officer hereinafter authorized to execute the same, for the retaking of such prisoner. Any officer of the penal institution from which such prisoner shall have been paroled or any Federal officer authorized to serve criminal process within the United States to whom such warrant shall be delivered is authorized and required to execute such warrant by taking such prisoner and returning him to said penal institution." The following changes suggested by Mr. Bates, and in which I concur, are in addition to those recommended in my former opinion. Strike out the word "alienist" occurring in line 9, page 2, and insert in lieu thereof the word "psychiatrist.' Strike out the word "and" first occurring in line 18, page 4, and insert the word "the" in lieu thereof. Insert after the word "release, same line, same page, the word "of." Insert after the comma following the word "imposed" occurring in line 7, page 6, the following: "the unexpired term of imprisonment of any such prisoner to begin to run from the date he is returned to the institution." Change the period occurring in line 13, page 7, to a colon and insert the following: "Provided, however, That in the case of a prisoner convicted of felony committed prior to the effective date of this act, and in the case of any prisoner convicted of misdemeanor where the aggregate sentence imposed is in excess of one year, said Board of Indeterminate Sentence and Parole may parole said prisoner, under the provisions of this act, after said prisoner has served one-fifth of the sentence imposed, but not less than six months." WILLIAM W. BRIDE, Corporation Counsel, District of Columbia. MARCH 1, 1932. To: The Commissioners. In re: Senate bill No. 1155, entitled "A bill to establish a board of indeterminate sentence and parole for the District of Columbia and to determine its functions, and for other purposes." The purpose of this bill is twofold: First, to provide for the sentencing of persons found guilty of crime in the District of Columbia to indefinite sentences; and, SR-72-1-VOL 1-53 of the Bureau of Prisons of the Department of Justice, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, the National Committee on Prisons and Prison Labor, the General Federation of Women's Clubs, the District Federation of Women's Clubs, and the Women's City Club. At a public hearing held by the committee, the legislation was indorsed also by the director of public welfare and the superintendent of penal institutions of the District of Columbia. The committee knows of no opposition to the bill, and recommends the passage of the bill with the proposed amendments. There are appended hereto as part of this report several reports and letters received from official and private sources in support of the proposed legislation. COMMISSIONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Hon. ARTHUR Capper, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. SIR: The Commissioners of the District of Columbia have the honor to submit the following on Senate bill 1155, Seventy-second Congress, first session, entitled "A bill to establish a board of indeterminate sentence and parole for the District of Columbia and to determine its functions, and for other purposes," which you referred to them for report as to the merits of the bill and the propriety of its passage. This bill was forwarded by the Commissioners to the Board of Public Welfare, and the corporation counsel for report, and it has also been brought to the attention of the Department of Justice. The corporation counsel has recommended certain amendments by letters dated March 1, 1932, and March 21, 1932, copies of which are herewith. In these amendments, consideration has also been given to certain amendments proposed by the Department of Justice through Mr. Sanford Bates, director of the bureau of prisons of that department. These amendments are satisfactory to the corporation counsel. The commissioners also wrote to the Director of the Bureau of the Budget for advice as to whether the proposed legislation was in accord with the financial program of the President. By letter dated March 17, 1932, copy herewith, he advised that it is in accord with the financial program of the President. The commissioners recommend favorable action on the bill provided it is amended according to the suggestions of the corporation counsel. Very truly yours, L. H. REICHelderfer, MARCH 17, 1932. Hon. LUTHER H. REICHElderfer, President Board of Commissioners, District of Columbia, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR DOCTOR REICHELDERFER: I have your letter of March 4, 1932, with reference to S. 1155, "A bill to establish a board of indeterminate sentence and parole for the District of Columbia and to determine its functions, and for other purposes." You are advised that in so far as the financial program of the President is concerned, there is no objection to your proposed report on this bill. I am inclosing for your information copy of a memorandum I have received with respect to this proposed legislation from Hon. Sanford Bates, Director of the Bureau of Prisons, Department of Justice. Very truly yours, J. CLAWSON Roor, Director. To: The Commissioners. MARCH 21, 1932. In re: Senate bill No. 1155, entitled "A bill to establish a board of indeterminate sentence and parole for the District of Columbia and to determine its functions, and for other purposes." This report is supplemental to the report rendered the commissioners on this bill under date of March 1, 1932. The changes recommended by this office in that report were incorporated in House bill No. 10273. Since then there has been referred to me the memorandum of Mr. Sanford Bates, director of the bureau of prisons of the Department of Justice, suggesting certain changes in the House bill. I am in accord with all of these with two exceptions. In my opinion the bill does not impose upon the board the administrative duty of controlling the conduct of the paroled prisoner, but merely permits it to supervise such administrative duty. I believe in this respect the bill should not be changed. Nor do I believe the bill should be amended so as to require the revocation of the parole before a warrant is issued for the return of the paroled prisoner. It may be that word is received that the prisoner is about to leave the jurisdiction, in which event the warrant should issue forthwith. The delay in securing a meeting of the board to revoke the parole before the issuance of the warrant might prevent the arrest of the prisoner. I agree with Mr. Bates that the duties of the board may be so burdensome that the members thereof should be compensated for their time. However, I believe there are enough public spirited citizens in the District of Columbia willing to undertake this work without salary. Therefore, in view of the present financial conditions, I recommend that no provision be inserted in this bill for the payment of compensation to the members of the board. In order to meet Mr. Bates' suggestion with respect to section 5, I recommend the same be amended to read as follows instead of as suggested in my former opinion: "SEC. 5. If said board of indeterminate sentence and parole, or any member thereof, shall have reliable information that a prisoner has violated his parole, said board, or any member thereof, at any time within the term or terms of the prisoner's sentence, may issue a warrant to any officer hereinafter authorized to execute the same, for the retaking of such prisoner. Any officer of the penal institution from which such prisoner shall have been paroled or any Federal officer authorized to serve criminal process within the United States to whom such warrant shall be delivered is authorized and required to execute such warrant by taking such prisoner and returning him to said penal institution." The following changes suggested by Mr. Bates, and in which I concur, are in addition to those recommended in my former opinion. Strike out the word "alienist" occurring in line 9, page 2, and insert in lieu thereof the word "psychiatrist." Strike out the word "and" first occurring in line 18, page 4, and insert the word "the" in lieu thereof. Insert after the word "release," same line, same page, the word "of." Insert after the comma following the word "imposed" occurring in line 7, page 6, the following: "the unexpired term of imprisonment of any such prisoner to begin to run from the date he is returned to the institution." Change the period occurring in line 13, page 7, to a colon and insert the following: "Provided, however, That in the case of a prisoner convicted of felony committed prior to the effective date of this act, and in the case of any prisoner convicted of misdemeanor where the aggregate sentence imposed is in excess of one year, said Board of Indeterminate Sentence and Parole may parole said prisoner, under the provisions of this act, after said prisoner has served one-fifth of the sentence imposed, but not less than six months." To: The Commissioners. WILLIAM W. Bride, Corporation Counsel, District of Columbia. MARCH 1, 1932. In re: Senate bill No. 1155, entitled "A bill to establish a board of indeterminate sentence and parole for the District of Columbia and to determine its functions, and for other purposes." The purpose of this bill is twofold: First, to provide for the sentencing of persons found guilty of crime in the District of Columbia to indefinite sentences; and, SR-72-1-VOL 1-53 second, to establish a District of Columbia parole board for prisoners confined in the penal institutions of the District of Columbia. The scheme of sentencing persons to an indefinite term falling between two extremes so that the severity of the punishment will depend upon the behavior of the prisoner himself has been adopted in many of the States and seems to provide for a more humanitarian treatment of convicts. It would also appear advisable for the District of Columbia to have its own parole board. However, in my opinion, the pending bill is defective in many particulars and several amendments should be made thereto. It has been suggested that the terms of the members should be increased from one, two, and three years to three, five, and seven years, respectively, so as to provide for a more consistent policy, something which is desirable in this legislation. To accomplish this strike out the word "one" occurring at the end of line 10, page 1, and substitute the word "three." Strike out the words "two" and 'three" occurring in line 1, page 2, and substitute the words "five" and "seven", respectively. Strike out the word "three" occurring in line 3, page 2, and insert the word "seven." Section 3 provides for the imposing of indeterminate sentences upon all persons convicted of "crime or an offense against the laws of the United States or of the District of Columbia," which includes sentences imposed in the police court for minor offenses. In my opinion, the provisions of this section should be limited to sentences upon persons convicted of felony. Furthermore, the section is ambiguous in certain particulars and I therefore suggest it be amended to read as follows: "SEC. 3. That hereafter, in imposing sentence on a person convicted in the District of Columbia of a felony, the justice or judge of the court imposing such sentence shall sentence the person for a maximum period, not exceeding the maximum fixed by law, and for a minimum period not exceeding one-fifth of the maximum period fixed by law, and any person so convicted and sentenced may be released on parole as herein provided at any time after having served the minimum sentence, but not less than six months: Provided, however, That this act shall not abrogate the power of the justice or judge to sentence a convicted person to the death penalty or to life imprisonment as now or hereafter may be provided by law: Provided further, That where a justice or a judge of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia has imposed a life sentence on a person convicted in the District of Columbia, said person serving such sentence shall be eligible to parole as herein provided at any time after having served 15 years of his life's sentence." In section 4 it is provided that "whenever" it shall appear to the parole board that certain conditions exist the prisoner may be paroled. Section 3, however, provides that before parole the prisoner must have served his minimum sentence but not less than six months. In order to make section 4 conform with the provisions of section 3 there should be inserted after the word "whenever" occurring in line 9, page 4, the words "within the limitations of section 3 of this act.' Section 4 also prescribes as a condition for the parole of a prisoner that the board shall find he "is fitted by his training for release." Just what training the prisoner must receive does not appear and I suggest that the words "by his training" occurring in lines 14 and 15, page 4, be deleted. The word "hereinafter" occurring in line 5, page 5, should be changed to "hereafter." Section 5 of the pending bill provides that if a prisoner who has violated his parole is beyond the bounds of the District of Columbia a warrant for his arrest shall issue from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. It contains no provision for the issuing of a warrant for a prisoner within the District of Columbia. Section 6 provides only for the revocation of a parole after a warrant has been issued. Therefore, no matter what the conduct of a paroled prisoner living within the District of Columbia might be his parole could never be revoked. This defect, of course, must be remedied. In the Federal parole law the warden of the institution from which the prisoner was paroled is authorized to issue a warrant for his arrest in all cases of violation of the parole, and I believe that would be the better practice to follow here rather than require an application to be made to the supreme court of the District. In line with these suggestions I recommend that section 5 be amended to read as follows: "SEC. 5. If the superintendent of the penal institution of the District of Columbia, from which a prisoner shall have been paroled, or said board of indeterminate sentence and parole, or any member thereof, shall have reliable information that the prisoner has violated his parole, then said superintendent, at any time within the term or terms of the prisoner's sentence, may issue his warrant to any officer hereinafter authorized to execute the same, for the retaking of such prisoner. Any officer of said penal institution or any Federal officer authorized to serve criminal process within the United States to whom such warrant shall be delivered is authorized and required to execute such warrant by taking such prisoner and returning him to said prison. In order to clarify section 6, I recommend that all of lines 7 to 14, inclusive, page 6, be stricken out and the following inserted in lieu thereof: "and terminate such parole or modify the terms and conditions thereof, and if such order of parole be revoked and the parole so terminated, the said prisoner shall serve the remainder of the sentence originally imposed and the time the prisoner was out on parole shall not be taken into account to diminish the time for which he was sentenced: Provided, That the parole board, at its discretion, may afterwards grant a new parole to said prisoner, in the event said board should deem it advisable." The District attorney has suggested a provision be inserted in this law for the punishment of prisoners who escape from the penal institutions in which they are confined. I therefore suggest a new section to be known as section 7 and to read as follows: "SEC. 7. Any person confined in a penal institution of the District of Columbia who escapes or attempts to escape therefrom, or any person who procures, advises, connives at, aids or assists in such escape or conceals any such prisoner after such escape, shall be guilty of an offense and upon conviction thereof in any court of the United States shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years, said sentence to begin, if the convicted person be an escaped prisoner, upon the expiration of the original sentence." Change the number of section 7 in the pending bill to "8." Section 8 of the pending bill provides that upon the appointment of members of the District parole board the powers of the existing parole board over prisoners confined in the penal institutions of the District of Columbia shall cease and determine. Since the new board is given authority only over prisoners sentenced to an indeterminate term, persons now serving sentences or who are hereafter sentenced for any felony committed prior to the passage of the act would be denied the right to parole. In order to meet this objection I recommend that section 8 of the pending bill be stricken out and that in lieu thereof there be inserted a new section numbered "9" to read as follows: "SEC. 9. Upon the appointment of the members of said board the powers of the existing parole board over prisoners confined in the penal institutions of the District of Columbia shall cease and determine and all the powers of said existing parole board under the authority of the act of Congress approved June 25, 1910, entitled 'An act to parole United States prisoners, and for other purposes' as amended, over said prisoners confined in the penal institutions of the District of Columbia shall be transferred to and vested in said board of indeterminate sentence and parole." Recommendation: With the amendments above suggested, I recommend that the passage of this bill be approved. WILLIAM W. Bride, Corporation Counsel, District of Columbia. Hon. ARTHUR CAPPER, WASHINGTON, D. C., March 19, 1982. Chairman Senate Committee on the District of Columbia, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR CAPPER: I acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 16th instant, inclosing copy of Senate bill 1155, providing for the establishment in the District of Columbia of a board of indeterminate sentence and parole, in which you request that I make such suggestions and criticisms on the proposed legislation as I deem proper. I have given the subject matter of this bill considerable study for the past few months and I thoroughly agree that some legislation of this type should be enacted by Congress. The bill, however, which seems to me to carry out in the most feasible manner this type of legislation is H. R. 10273, Seventy-second Congress, first session, together with the amendments to said bill proposed by Mr. Sanford Bates, |