Again, under the amended law the _court_ virtually determines when a prisoner shall be eligible to parole. This is, however, utterly subversive of the theory upon which the indeterminate sentence is based, namely, that _parole is to be granted when a prisoner is believed to be fit to be restored to society as a law-abiding citizen_. The time when this may be done no court under the sun can fix, but only those who have the prisoner in charge and under observation, and even they may make mistakes. In the argument on the amended bill before the Senate Committee, it was said by those who opposed the original law, that it conferred judicial functions on the Penitentiary Boards, and that there was not a State in the Union whose statutes prescribed both the maximum and the minimum. But it was shown that under the laws relating to the Huntingdon Reformatory the courts in imposing sentence do not fix the duration thereof, but that the Board of Managers is authorized to terminate the sentence at its discretion, provided the detention shall not exceed the maximum of the term assigned by law for the offense of which the prisoner was convicted; also, that in many States, such as Massachusetts, Connecticut, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota and others, the minimum as well as the maximum sentence to the state prison is fixed by law. It seems strange, indeed, that those who opposed the law of 1909 should have forgotten the law as regards Huntingdon; and that they should have been totally ignorant of the laws of other States on a subject that is to-day receiving the serious attention of many of the most thoughtful minds the world over!
On the benefits of a just and equal indeterminate sentence, Dr. Frederick Howard Wines, one of the best informed and most eminent penologists in the United States, expresses himself as follows:
“There is not, and in the nature of things there cannot be, any aid to a truly reformatory discipline like that afforded by the indeterminate sentence. Every prison official can testify to the dissatisfaction and unrest caused by the palpable inequality of sentences; an inequality which neither the legislature nor the courts can avoid or correct. The only equal sentence is the indeterminate sentence, with an identical maximum for all who violate a given section of the code, coupled with identical conditions by which to reduce it to the minimum _prescribed by law_. Its imposition removes all ground for complaint on this score. It also puts an end to the fallacious hope of an unconditional pardon. The prisoner is given to understand that the date of his release on parole depends entirely upon himself. The authorities desire his release and will help him to earn it; they are not his enemies, but his friends. This disarms him of his hostility to them. He is in a favorable state of mind to receive treatment, and is disposed to yield obedience to them, if they keep their promise to him. This leads to coöperation in the effort made for his restoration, without which a cure cannot be effected. The hope of an early release sustains him under the depressing influence of prison life and stimulates him to exert himself to avoid losing whatever he has gained by diligence and good conduct. He is aided to form habits of industry and obedience, which tend to become fixed. He is trained and transformed.