If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. • Special Anniversary Issue CELEBRATING 50 YEARS IN PRINT 1937·1987 The Establishment and Early Years of the Federal . :. • I :. \ Probation System ................................... ~ .................... Sanford Bates Latter-Day Procedures in the Sentencing and Treatment of Offenders in the Federal Courts . Henry P. Chandler oms for Probation Officers .................................... Joseph P. Murphy Lal Workers: Counseling Con Men? ................................ JO}ln Stratton I the Life of a Federal Probation Officer ........................... , William C. Nau -." a and Probation. .. ............................. R. Margaret Cork l Objectives in Probatio 106685-106692 U.S. Department of Justice h to Staff Accountabili1 National Institute of Justice ThiS document has been reproduced exactly as received from the 1 Call It Control-And person or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stated in thiS document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the offiCial position or flolicies of the National Institute of and Felony Offenders. Justice PermissIOn to reproduce this cOPYrighted material has been Le Future: The Intensi granted by I .. F~~"=-~~E()~at~c?I1_--,ql.:l~!~~ly ____ _ to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) Further reproductJon outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ sion of the copyright owner JUNE 1987 • lo(P~85 • A J 0 URN A L OF COR R E C T ION ALP H I LOS 0 P H Y AND P R P 'J TIC E Published by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts • VOLUME LI JUNE 1987 NUMBER 2 This Issue in Brief HIS SPECIAL ISSUE contains 10 out­ authored. Selecting 10 articles from among the many • standing articles from Federal Probation's excellent articles the journal has published was T 50-year past. During its lifetime, the journal indeed a challenge. Our selections were based on has carried close to 2,000 articles on every con­ recommendations from advisory committee ceivable criminal justice topic. MaY'Y of our articles members, frequent contributors, and editorial staff, have been among the first to express innovations- past and present. The potpourri of articles here • pretrial services, victim compensation, community reflect ideas that were particularly bright or pro­ service, and others-that went on to become accepted phetic when written, or they were of such solid standard correctional programs. Our authors have wisdom that they have endured. We believe you will included some of the most important practitioners enjoy reading them. and theoreticians in criminal justice and correc- tions. • The articles in this special issue were selected LORENE LAKE because they exemplify the flavor and s'ubstance of EDITOR thought and practice in probation, particularly the Federal Probation System, at the time they were CONTENTS •t. E,t.bJi,hmont ",d E~ly Y.~ of tho _ -,\ Behavioral Objectives in Probation and Federal Probation System • ' Parole: A New Approach to Staff 0> (June 1950) , ... , , .. /. O. ~ . ". g. ft, ...... Sanford Bates 4 \ Accountability (December 1982) ........ Alvin W. Cohn 40 ~ o,lrobation: Call It Control-And Mean It -Latter-Day Procedures in the Sentencing 10" b i 7 "~\ '. (December 1976) ................... Walter L. Barkdull 50 /). and Treatment of Offenders in the \ • Federal Courts (March 1952) ........ Henry P. Chandler 10 \ Rrobation and Felony Offenders (June 1985) .......................... Joan Petersilia 5b. I.Some Axioms for Probation Officers J 0 (j, B i-' w (News of the Future: The Intensive f( (February 1940) ................... Joseph P. Murphy I If;" I l..2 L Revolution (June 1986) ............... John P. Conrad 62 Correctional Workers: Counseling Con Men? Departments .., '(' • (September 24 1973) ...................... John Stratton - ,('I '.J- I 'llV~ H <: tlS"ews of the Future .. P."1.r.· : ."t.' .....• " ..q r.. ...<,,' 1.\ ,,,.<.:. io>•••• •• 65 .r A Day in the Life of A Federal Probation J 0" b t r Looking at the Law ............ '. '" () G·tl' ~ ·L .... 69 1..£ Officer March 1967) ........ ........ William C. Nau Reviews of Professional Periodicals ................... 72 Your Bookshelf on Review .......................... 81 r.Alcoholism and Probation t 0 f>" yo News from the Field ............................... 87 12.. (September 1957) ................ " .R. Margaret Cork It Has Come to Our Attention ....................... 90 '. • 1 • • The Establishment and Early Years of the Federal Probation System By SANFORD BATES • Cornrnissioner, New Jersey Department of Institutions and Agencies N~ CE,LE, BR~TI~N of the ~wenty-fifth anniversary jails. It was not until 1895 that any agitation de­ OI probabon 111 the Umted States courts and in veloped for the construction of a Government I consideration of its phenomenal growth and prison. This being so, it was likewise not sur­ development in terms of coverage and excellence prising that the correctional device known as pro­ of administration, it is well to think upon, for a bation was not used in the federal system as a • moment, the fairly recent development of this substitute for imprisonment. whole department of criminal justice which we Effect of Killits Case.-From 1878, when proba­ now call probation. bation was officially born in Massachusetts, up to the second decade of the twentieth century, 'its Setting of the Federal Probation System use developed rapidly in the states. In 1916 in the so-called Killits case,l however, the United States Federal vs. state crirnes.-Those who are famil­ Supreme Court held that federal judges had no • iar with American criminal jurisprudence need power to suspend a sentence and put an offender not be reminded that in addition to, and to some on probation. That effectually nipped in the bud extent paralleling, the criminal jurisprudence of any development of probation in the criminal each of the 48 American states there is a federal courts of the Federal Government. system of criminal justice. When the states first Occasionally a socially-minded judge would formed themselves into a federated Union certain devise a method whereby he could give some of the • powers and duties were delegated to the Federal benefits of probation, and one or two courts Government. From the beginning of the Union, adopted the expedient of continuing the case for therefore, there has always existed a limited num­ several months and in the meantime placing cer­ ber of offenses against laws to secure the general tain restrictions upon the defendant. Judge James well-being of the Nation as a whole. Crimes C. Lowell of Massachusetts, under the guidance, against the currency, crimes committed upon the no doubt, of that celebrated leader of Massachu­ • high seas, violations of the postal laws and regu­ setts probation, Herbert C. Parsons, tried this lations, and crimes committed on army or other method with some good results. governmental reservations, are typical examples Passage of the federal probation law.-In the of offenses known as federal crimes. The vast meantime, not long after the Killits decision the bulk of crimes, however, are punished by the sev­ National Pro ation Association and others eral states. Murder, robbery, theft, arson, fraud, i~ter­ ested in the development of this twentieth-century • and the host of misdemeanors, both mala prohibita experiment in penology, vigorously renewed their and mala in se, were left to the states to punish or prevent. Previous to the last 2 decades the campaign in Congress to have probation officially amount of federal crime was relatively small and recognized. It was not until 1925, however, that its prosecution and punishment occupied a cor­ they succeeded in having a bill passed and then respondingly insignificant position in general com­ not without considerable effort. • munity attempts to enforce law and order. One of the able and persistent leaders in the campaign was Charles L. Chute, then Secretary of It is not surprising to find, therefore, that dur­ the National Probation Association. Speaking ing the whole of the nineteenth century the Federal editorially in the, April 1925 issue of The Proba­ Government took practically no interest in its prisoners and while most of the states were devel­ tion Bulletin, he said: oping systems of penal discipline the Government The greatest credit is due to Congressman George • S. Gr~ham of Philadelphia, Chairman of the Judiciary was content to "board" its prisoners in county Commltte.e, who strongly and consistently urged the measure In the House; als~ to Senator Royal S. Cope­ land of .New York, who Introduced and secured its 1 Eo: parte United StateR, 242 U. S. 27. passage In the Senate. Senator Samuel Shortridge of • 4 • EARLY YEARS OF THE FEDERAL PROBATION SYSTElVl 5 California, as Chairman of the JUdiciary subcommittee the disposal of the federal judges. When, added which reported the bill, also interested himself greatly in the bill as did many other Senators and Congressmen. to the success of many of the progressive states Our Committee on Federal Probation, headed by Judge Edwin L. Garvin, U. S. District Court, Brooklyn, N. Y., in dealing with offenders through probation, the • deserves our thanks as does each of the group who went economic features of this new system were ex­ to Washington for the hearings. Herbert C. Parsons and Charles M. Davenport, both of Boston, deserve plained to a subcommittee of the Judiciary; when special credit for assisting the General Secretary at the possibility was shown that without in any way critical times in Washington. weakening the sanctions of the criminal law men It was said that officials in the Department of could be saved for useful law-abiding lives through • Justice were not hospitable to the idea of proba­ the expedient of probation, Congress acquiesced tion. Many of the federal judges were entirely un­ and the Federal Probation Act was passed and acquainted with its possibilities. Those in charge was made immediately effective by the signature of the prosecution of criminal cases for the Gov­ of President Coolidge on March 4, 1925.