95 ILLUSTRATING VARIATION OF MAGISTRATES IN DISPOSING OF SIMILAR CASES CHART NUMBER 22 INTOXICATION PERCENTAGES TOTAL CONVICTIONS MSADOO MARSH 202 LEVY STEERS WALSH HOUSE CORRIGAN SIMMS DEVEL HARRIS DOOLEY KOENIG Совв NASH MURPHY FROTHINGHAM CORNELL BARLOW MS QUADE NAUMER MCGUIRE PATTON FITCH KOCHENDORFER TEN EYCK HANDY ESTERBROOK REYNOLDS EVINS MILLER NOLAN BROUGH KROTEL BREEN CONWAY GROEHL APPLETON DOOD GEISMAR VOORHEES FOLWELL CITY HOME, GOOD BEHAVIOR BOND AND OTHERS (Chart No. 22 in the 1916 Annual Report, City Magistrates' Courts, New York City) With the consent of the Chief City Magistrate the Committee on Criminal Courts went over the records of the 155,000 or so cases disposed of in 1914 with the special purpose of finding to what an extent this personal equation really did enter into the dispositions by the different magistrates in the various classes of cases coming before them. Their study covered some 40 pages of statistical tables, showing the difference in treatment of the various classes of offenses by the individual magistrates. They illustrated these tables with graphic charts, or "barber poles," as the Chief City Magistrate called them. The results were so striking that they were published as a major portion of the report of the Magistrates' Courts for that year. Since then similar tabulations have been made for the succeeding years and have been published. The tabulations showed that the magistrates did differ to an amazing degree in their treatment of similar classes of cases. The last published annual report shows that in 1916, 17,075 persons were brought before the court for public intoxication. Of this number nearly 92 per cent were convicted of the charge and 8 per cent were discharged as not guilty. This does not mean that each of the forty-one magistrates who helped in disposing of this large number handled the cases in a similar manner. Five hundred and sixty-six persons were arraigned before Judge Naumer, who discharged only one of this whole number. Judge Corrigan had 673 persons brought before him. He found that 531, or nearly 79 per cent of the total number, were not guilty and discharged them. Between these two extremes the other magistrates are arrayed in different degrees of severity and leniency. There were 43,096 brought into the courts for disorderly conduct. The variation among the magistrates in these cases, however, was not as great as the difference in the treatment of cases of public intoxication. Judge Simms, the most severe, discharged only 18 per cent of his cases and Judge Walsh, the most lenient, discharged 54 per cent. In other words, one coming before Magistrate Simms had only 2 chances in 10 of getting off. If he had come before Judge Walsh he would have more than 5 chances in 10 of getting off. Judge Simms discharged only 4.5 per cent of the persons brought before him for vagrancy and Judge Fitch discharged 79 per cent of those brought before him. After a magistrate has convicted a person he may do one of the following things: He may suspend sentence, which is practically equivalent to discharge; he may fine a person; he may place a person on probation, or he may send him to the workhouse, to a reformatory or some other institution provided by the state or city. During the year Judge McQuade disposed of 4,835 cases, 7 per cent of these were given suspended sentence; 84 per cent were fined; nearly 7 per cent were sent to the workhouse and a negligible number placed on probation or sent to reformatories or other institutions. The fine seemed to be, in Judge McQuade's opinion, the most potent instrument of punishment and reformation. At the opposite extreme was Magistrate Folwell, who suspended sentence in 59 per cent of the 4,253 cases brought before him. About 34 per cent were fined; a little more than 2 per cent were sent to the workhouse and the remainder sent to the reformatory or other institutions. Judge Folwell apparently believes in the efficacy of the suspended sentence as a means of reform and punishment. Judge Marsh convicted 1,117 cases of violation of corporation ofdinances. He fined them all but six and suspended sentence on these. Judge McGuire convicted 778 of this offense. He suspended sentence in 480 of these cases, or nearly 61 per cent of them, and fined the rest. These men are the opposite extremes in disposing of this particular class of offenders. In the case of disorderly conduct one magistrate suspended sentence in a little more than one out of every fifty of his cases, while another suspended sentence in 50 per cent of his cases or in every alternate one. The suspended sentence is the favorite means of disposing of cases of intoxication. Forty-eight per cent of the 15,683 who were convicted of this offense were so disposed of. Some of the magistrates, however, did not put much faith in this method of disposition, while others used it almost exclusively. Judge Marsh suspended sentence in less than one out of every hundred, Judge Levy in one out of every twenty, Judges Naumer, McGuire, Patten and Fitch suspended sentence in about half of the cases; Judges Dodd, Geismar, Voorhees and Folwell let three out of every four go on suspended sentence. Judge Steers fined 80 per cent of his cases, while Judge Folwell fined only 7 per cent. Judge Levy fined all of his cases convicted of peddling without license and Judge Kochendorfer fined one in every ten and suspended sentence on the remainder. Judge Brough suspended sentence in no cases of vagrancy. Judge Conway suspended sentence on every alternate one. Judge Brough sent 80 per cent of his cases to the workhouse and Judge Conway only about 17 per cent. In petty misdemeanor cases Judge Marsh suspended sentence in only 1.9 per cent of his cases, Judge McGuire in 72.5 per cent of his cases. In the figures given above we have shown to what a remarkable degree the individuality of the magistrates is mirrored in their disposition of cases. Justice is a very personal thing reflecting the temperament, the personality, the education, environment and personal traits of the magistrate. The magistrates are not to be condemned for this variation, nor are the lenient magistrates to be condemned for their leniency or the severe magistrates for their severity. It would be presumption on the part of anyone to put himself up as a judge in these matters. It is assumed that each magistrate is doing his duty as he sees it and is rendering his best service in disposing of cases brought before him. However, it is to be doubted if there is any public position where one may be more of a czar than in the Magistrates' Courts. The magistrate sits alone and often during the course of a day disposes. of from 50 to 100 cases. He must get the facts quickly and decide quickly. It is the easiest thing in the world therefore for him to get into a rut in handling different kinds of cases. Before the publication of the 1914 Report of the Courts he has never had an opportunity to compare his work with that of his colleagues and from year to year his personal peculiarities were inclined to become accentuated. The figures published in the court reports show that this is true. It is believed by those who are responsible for showing these comparisons of the magistrates' work that by the publication of these records the magistrates will come to a better understanding of their own work and bring to it a viewpoint somewhat tempered by the knowledge of what the other judges are doing and with a broader viewpoint of the problems before them. Each magistrate will come to recognize his own personal peculiarities and seek to correct any that cannot be justified in the light of the records of his associates and that a more or less flexible standard of justice can be approached in disposing of similar classes of offenders. It is certain that if we made a similar comparison of the work of judges in the various courts of the communities throughout the country that there would be the same diversity in the treatment of |