VI. Juvenile Courts

PROBATION AND JUVENILE COURTS

ByMrs. Emily E. Williamson, Elizabeth, N. J.President New Jersey State Conference of Charities and Corrections

ByMrs. Emily E. Williamson, Elizabeth, N. J.

President New Jersey State Conference of Charities and Corrections

Perhaps the most practical movement in penal reform is probation, putting a stop as it does to the source from which crime is recruited. The principle involved in probation is prevention and, where properly applied, has resulted in a very large diminution of crime. Massachusetts reports a falling off of 75 per cent in juvenile crime, owing to probation. Juvenile and first offenders should never be dealt with as real criminals under the law except in special cases of depravity. Penological science lays down general rules for the treatment of juveniles and first offenders, absolutely prohibiting imprisonment except for those convicted of flagrant crimes, as it breaks down self-respect, placing a stigma on character that is never removed. Its deterrent power is destroyed with its relief from care and comfortable support and it hurts the physical, mental and moral health of the prisoner. The main object in the sentence of the convicted juvenile or first offender should be his rescue from a criminal life; therefore a complete investigation should be made of his character, home and environment before trial. In Massachusetts the probation act requires a probation officer to inquire into the nature of every criminal case brought before the court, and he may recommend that any person committed by the court be placed on probation. The question for the court, upon the information of the probation officer, is to decide whether it is safe for society to allow the prisoner to go at large. It has become an established fact among the people of Massachusetts, after several years of trial, that in the administration of justice the probation system has been wise and beneficial.

The probation law enacted by the legislature of Illinois in 1899 declares the purpose of the law to be as follows: “This act shall be liberally construed to the purpose that its end may be carried out, to wit: that the care, custody and discipline of a child shall approximate as nearly as may be that which should be given by its parents; and in all cases where it can be properly done, the child be placed in an approved family home and become a memberof the family by legal adoption or otherwise.” The Illinois juvenile court in its instructions to probation officers states that it will be the endeavor of the court to carry out both the letter and the spirit of the foregoing act, and to this end the court will have in mind the following considerations:The Welfare and Interests of the Child.—To save the child from neglect and cruelty and from the danger of becoming a criminal or dependent.The Welfare of the Community.—Lessening the burdens of taxation and loss of property through the ravages of the criminal class and by preventing pauperism and crime.Temporary Care.—The law forbidding the keeping of any child in a jail or station-house, a place of detention is provided under the care of the court. Whenever practicable the child is to be left with his parents or with some suitable family.Supervision After Action of the Court.—The probation officer is expected to keep a special oversight of the child by frequent visits at regular intervals and by reports from parents or custodians.

In Pennsylvania the law requires that the probation officer shall be notified when any juvenile offender is brought before the court, that he shall make such investigation as shall be directed by the court, be present to represent the interests of the child when the case is heard, furnish such information and assistance as the judge may require and take such charge of any child before or after trial as may be ordered.

Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota and New Jersey have state probation laws. San Francisco and Washington, D. C., have probation officers for the cities alone. New York has at last provided for probation and also for children’s courts, but the plans are not yet completed.

Voluntary probation officers in many cases in the large cities assist the paid officer, and in Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston and New York the child-saving societies of all denominations have placed officers—appointed by them for this purpose—at the disposal of the court. Their services have always been accepted. In New Jersey the State Board of Children’s Guardians greatly assists the county probation officers. Wise child-saving work can be done with this mutual co-operation.

In March, 1900, a bill prepared by Justice Franklin T. Fort, of the Supreme Court, was passed by the New Jersey legislature, providing for the appointment of probation officers and authorizing judges of the Courts of Quarter Sessions to appoint one probationofficer and, with the consent of the board of county freeholders, as many other probation officers, not exceeding three, one of whom may be a woman, as the judge deems wise. The classes of offenders who may be probated,i. e., respecting age, etc., is left entirely to the discretion of the judge. Seven counties in New Jersey have probation officers—Hudson, Essex, Morris, Union, Middlesex, Mercer and Atlantic.

In February, 1902 at my request, I was appointed, by the court, probation officer for Union county, New Jersey, to serve without salary, the court granting fifty dollars a month for a clerk and allowing necessary expenses—in all not to exceed eight hundred dollars annually. The following are the descriptive blanks and rules prepared by me and allowed by the court. In addition, case cards are kept in which all records in detail are entered. A synopsis of each case is also entered in a history book which is easily referred to by an index kept on the Dewey plan. Each probationer is visited by the probation officer or her clerk once a month and in special cases oftener. The probationer reports regularly at the office, either in person or by letter, at such times as directed.

UNION COUNTY PROBATION OFFICER. RECORD.

No.NameAddressAge Height WeightWhite or colored Color of eyes HairComplexionSpecial marksReligion ChurchSchool TeacherNationality Married or singleNumber of children, names and agesOccupationEmployer’s name and addressFather’s name and addressOccupationMother’s name and addressOccupationOther members of familyPrevious offensePresent offenseDate committed to Probation Officer Years expireFine, $ Costs, $Re-arrestedCause of Re-arrestREMARKS:Ledger number

No.

Name

Address

Age Height Weight

White or colored Color of eyes Hair

Complexion

Special marks

Religion Church

School Teacher

Nationality Married or single

Number of children, names and ages

Occupation

Employer’s name and address

Father’s name and address

Occupation

Mother’s name and addressOccupationOther members of familyPrevious offensePresent offenseDate committed to Probation Officer Years expireFine, $ Costs, $Re-arrestedCause of Re-arrestREMARKS:

Mother’s name and address

Occupation

Other members of family

Previous offense

Present offense

Date committed to Probation Officer Years expire

Fine, $ Costs, $

Re-arrested

Cause of Re-arrest

REMARKS:

Ledger number

The Probationeris required by the Court,

First.—To furnish promptly, by letter or in person, such information as the Probation Officer may require.

Second.—To mail on the first of each month a letter, stating his present residence and occupation, place of employment and the name of his employer; also the number of days employed during the previous month, the place or places of employment and the names of his employers. If the Probationer is of school age, the number of days of school attendance must be given. The truth of these facts must be certified by parent, employer, school teacher or some other person satisfactory to the Probation Officer.

Third.—Evil companions and bad associations must be avoided. Strict temperance must be observed. The Probationer must in every way conduct himself as an upright and law-abiding citizen.

Fourth.—To report promptly to the Probation Officer every change of residence. To consult the Probation Officer before moving out of the State of New Jersey or out of Union County.

Fifth.—If the Probationer undertakes to pay fines or costs at stated periods these payments must be prompt. If unable to meet the obligation promptly he will send advance notice to the Probation Officer.

The probation period is three years. If during this period of trial the Probationer fails to observe strictly each of the above rules, he is liable to be taken into custody at any time by the Probation Officer to serve the full term of his suspended sentence. Liberty depends entirely on the good conduct of the Probationer.

During the three months that I have held this office twenty-six cases have been probated to me by the judge of the county court and forty-six by the police justices of the county. The ages of the probationers and the character of the charges made against them are as follows:

The secretary of the New Jersey State Charities Aid Association in his report says: “It is easier in Union than in most counties to learn whether such an officer is needed by the court, by the prisoner and by society, for the records of the Union County Jail are exceptionally complete. The Warden’s report contains statistics on two most important points—the ages of the prisoners and the number of the commitments. These two points are most important because the probation system presumes that all persons who are inexperienced in crime, whatever their actual age, can be better treated under supervision outside of jail than in idleness within jail.

“The New Jersey law was made broad enough to include both children of 7 years and adults of 83, except where safety demands the prisoner’s incarceration. From the Warden’s report it appears that 591 persons were sent to the county jail last year for terms averaging twenty-nine days. Of this number only 181, or 30 per cent, had served previous sentences. The great majority, 70 per cent, or 410, had never been previously committed. Among these first commitments are found persons of every age from 7 to 70 excepting 52, 56, 58, 62 and 69, while the years 71, 77 and 83 have one representative each. Take what age we will, public sentiment would approve another chance outside of jail, for every first offender, provided the dignity of the law and the welfare of society would be in no way jeopardized by suspending sentence. Our probation law provides for failures to reform outside of jail and gives to the probation officer and the court power to inflict theoriginal but suspended sentence at any time within three years from the date of conviction. It is manifest that every successful case of probation nips in the bud a potential and probable career of crime.”

The oversight of adult first offenders by a probation officer is of immense value in reforming the offender and also results in a great saving of expense to the taxpayer. The first is the primary object and probably I cannot do better than cite some cases which are under my care: J. E., aged 22, a bright Irishman, not intoxicated, in a quarrel which took place in a saloon, interfered and used too much strength in separating the combatants; charged with malicious assault, court would have committed him to county jail for six months had there been no probation officer. Probation officer returned the man to his home, helped him to secure employment, visited his accuser and warned him not to molest J. E. Young man’s weekly calls to report have become friendly visits; he is always well dressed and is entirely self-respecting.

N. M.; American; aged 59; painter; married; offence—grand larceny; never arrested before; while drunk, stole mayor’s horse and buggy from hitching-post on main street; man not an habitual drunkard, character good, provided comfortable home for his family, always industrious and kind. Had there been no probation officer N. M. would have been sent to state prison. He is now doing well and reporting regularly.

Two boys, 9 and 12 years, arrested on charge of disorderly conduct (threw a fish-head at an old woman); belonged to the “gang;” had fairly good homes; did not attend school regularly; found upon investigation to be mischievous and truants only. Probation officer handed boys to truant officer, who immediately placed them in school. Boys report each week, come to office in Sunday clothes and evidently enjoy these visits. One lad has been employed on Saturdays, by probation officer’s clerk, doing odd jobs and is very proud of this evidence of favor. There has been a great improvement in the whole family owing to pressure through this little fellow.

In cases of non-support which are always tried before police justices, probation has proved of inestimable value. The following is an example: Mr. B. drank occasionally, earned eighteen dollars a week and failed to support his family; was arrested and handed to the probation officer. After a thorough investigation, including conditions in the home, the man was ordered to request his employerto hand Mrs. B. ten and one-half dollars every week—one and one-half dollars for each of the five children and three dollars for Mr. B.’s own board. Besides this the man was required to pay the house rent, eight dollars a month. After the first month, at the request of the wife, he was allowed to give her the money himself. Each week the man reports the payment. Had Mr. B. been sent to jail, he would have lost his self-respect and his situation, he would have become an expense to the taxpayer and his family dependent on the charity of the community.

Three little Polish girls, aged 9, 10 and 11 years, arrested and indicted by the Grand Jury for grand larceny; on investigation found parents, who could not speak English, were not implicated; homes above the average. Children had stolen ribbons, lace and other articles for personal adornment, saying some had been presents; others were hidden between two old mattresses in a garret; parents terribly frightened when discoveries were made. Upon arrest of children and after bail had been secured, I began to take supervision of them; examined each one separately at my office; sent for priest, and arranged for daily instructions by the Sisters—little girls had been regular attendants at school. Later, without trial, they were probated to me by the court for an indefinite period.

The police magistrates of Hudson and Union counties avail themselves of the services of the probation officers and it is in these courts that good preventive work can be done by seeing the accused as soon as a charge is made and by investigating the case before trial, and also, in many instances, preventing the charge being entered by talking the matter over and promising to see the accused. In Elizabeth, the largest city of Union county, arrests and commitments have fallen off 40 per cent since the work of the probation officer has become known.

Three Italians appeared at my office, one to complain of two boys and the others the fathers of the boys. These men had come to ask me to take charge of the little fellows, who were mischievous and annoyed the complainant. All three were satisfied with my decision.

A Jew, who was in the habit of making charges of disorderly conduct against mischievous boys, after a talk with me, promised to bring no more children before the court until I had investigated each case for him. He had not realized the serious harm inflicted upon the boys’ characters by their being brought into court.At the end of an hour he was fully convinced. The railway detectives also report cases to me before making charges and abide by my decisions.

There is great danger of perfunctory work on the part of the probation officer and very grave danger from the uneducated officer. Public opinion has still to be aroused; therefore the need of the best work along these lines. Where good work has been done, the public has recognized that the practice of inflicting short terms of imprisonment for minor offences is useless and harmful. The need of men and women of sound judgment and high character for this work is great, and in the development of the system it is hoped that many specialists will devote some time to the installation of the work and help to bring about the proper administration of the law.

Boston was the first city to set apart special hours for the trial of juvenile offenders, and the excellent way in which these trials are managed is an object lesson worth studying. Persons not connected with the trial are required to leave the court room, the officer who made the arrest tells his story, the complainant his, and the witnesses are examined. The child is called to the judge’s desk and tells his story in a quiet voice. Confidential relations are at once established between the child and the judge. The probation officer then makes his report upon the case, after which the judge announces his decision.

The same methods are employed in Chicago, Philadelphia and Minneapolis and will be in New York. In Chicago, a judge has been appointed who only tries children’s cases; in New York, a judge is to be chosen from time to time. The value of this way of conducting juvenile trials cannot be overestimated, as it robs the trial of all the sensational element. It also makes it easy for the various child-saving societies, such as the St. Vincent de Paul, Children’s Aid and Prevention of Cruelty to Children and for truant officers to co-operate with the court.

The following is a pen-picture of a trial held before the court in which I am probation officer: Court room crowded, twenty-two lawyers present; prosecutor reads the indictment. Boy eleven years old arrested for stealing brass worth eighty dollars, from railroad, and selling it to a junk man for twenty cents; had been bailed by kind neighbor, who delivered the boy. Court officer calls witnesses; boy brought; so small that his eyes are just on a line with therail; boy weeping; prosecutor exclaims, and says boy should be in day-nursery; audience in back of room rises and presses forward to look at boy; lawyers inside of rail jump to their feet; court raps for order; boy realizes that he has become an object of pity and curiosity, cries louder and calls for his mother, who comes forward with a baby in her arms; judge and prosecutor confer, boy is handed over to probation officer to be produced to stand trial when called, virtually ending the matter.

THE JUVENILE COURT IN PHILADELPHIA

ByJudge Abraham M. BeitlerCourt of Common Pleas No. 1, Philadelphia

ByJudge Abraham M. Beitler

Court of Common Pleas No. 1, Philadelphia

At its session in 1901 the legislature of our state passed an act, with a rather lengthy title, which has become known as the Juvenile Court Act. It passed the Senate by unanimous vote and in the House there were but three votes against it and one hundred and forty-seven for it. The act commits to a Judge of the Court of Quarter Sessions some new powers, and imposes upon him some new duties.

The scope of these powers and duties is, I am sure, understood by but few. That there may be a wider acquaintance with the new law and a clearer appreciation of the benefits possible to· be secured by its enforcement, I have tried to condense into a brief article a statement of its salient features, and, besides, to give some data as to the work done since the act was put into operation in Philadelphia.

The act deals only with juveniles, and only with those under sixteen years of age, and of juveniles under sixteen only with the unfortunate and the erring. By its terms it applies to “dependent or neglected” children, and “delinquent” children. The first class, the act says, shall include any child who is destitute or homeless or abandoned or dependent upon the public for support, or who has not the proper parental care or guardianship, or who habitually begs or receives alms, or whose home, by reason of neglect or cruelty or depravity of the parents, is an unfit place for such a child, or any child under eight years of age found peddling on the streets.

A “delinquent” child is one who “violates any law of this state, or any city or borough ordinance.”

The Court’s jurisdiction may be invoked by a petition, which must be verified by affidavit, stating that the child therein referred to is either dependent or neglected or delinquent.

Upon the filing of the petition, the Judge may issue either a summons or a warrant. The former requires the party having the custody of the child to produce it in court. The latter imposes theduty of bringing the child into court upon the officer armed with the warrant. Pending the final disposition of any case, the child may be retained in the possession of the person having it in charge, or in some suitable place provided by any association having for one of its objects the care of delinquent or neglected children.

As a matter of fact, very few cases are brought into court upon either summons or warrant. The Judge holding the court finds, upon the day fixed for the hearing of juvenile cases, that he has, perhaps, twenty-five cases on his docket, and to him they are all new cases. Most of them originated in the magistrates’ courts or in the station-houses.

The parent or parents of a child or children, for instance, may have been arrested for drunkenness or vagrancy. The magistrate hearing the case sends the parents perhaps to the House of Correction, and then something must be done for the immediate care of the children. They are turned over to the Children’s Aid Society or the Society to Protect Children from Cruelty. On the day for the hearing of juvenile cases, the children will be brought in by the Society’s agents, and a petition will be filed setting forth briefly the facts.

Sometimes the children are abandoned or homeless waifs turned over to the Society by the police.

The Judge sitting in the Juvenile Court proceeds to inquire carefully into each case. He has the assistance of the prior examination into the facts of each case by the Society’s agents. Sometimes the power of the Court is invoked to compel the attendance of relatives, or even of parents. After a careful hearing, the case of each child is decided, and a decree made. The testimony heard is taken down in a short narrative form by a stenographer, and then typewritten and filed for future reference. If the Judge is satisfied that the parent or parents of a child ought not to have the custody of the child, but are able to contribute to its support, he may make an order requiring the payment of such sum as the circumstances warrant. Children are sometimes turned over to relatives, and sometimes to a charitable society, regard being had always to the religion of the child in selecting the society.

Delinquents generally come into court from the magistrates’ courts; sometimes directly, sometimes from prison.

Now that the act is being better understood, and its benefits more generally appreciated by the magistrates and the police, aprobation officer is usually advised when a “delinquent” is taken into custody. The hearings are generally held by the magistrate at the station-house, and in a large number of cases, perhaps in a majority of cases, a probation officer is present to hear the testimony against the child and to set on foot an investigation not only of the charge on which the child is held, but as to his or her previous record and home life and surroundings. It is earnestly to be hoped that all our police lieutenants and police magistrates will speedily come to appreciate how greatly the probation officer can assist them and the Court, and will let no case be heard without having previously notified the nearest probation officer.

It is in the handling of these “delinquent” cases that the Judge has the most delicate and difficult tasks imposed on him. Sometimes the boy or girl is charged with some trifling offence, and the investigation made by the probation officer shows that the child is not really bad. The probation officer goes to the child’s home; if he attends school she calls on his school teacher; if he attends Sunday school she communicates with the Sunday school teacher; if he works, she goes to his employer, and endeavors in every way to ascertain what the child’s previous life has been and what his home surroundings are.

Sometimes it is apparent that even where the child is not depraved or incorrigible, it is best for his sake that he shall not be returned to his home. A single case will serve as an illustration.

Recently, a boy of thirteen was arrested for larceny. He was guilty. His father was a drunken brute. His mother was a hardworking, honest woman, but in the household she was a mere drudge, without voice or influence. The father sent the boy upon the street to steal. The Judge before whom the case came, heard the father and mother. The father promised to behave himself. The mother begged to have the boy returned to her. He was sent home, and a probation officer appointed in his case. Two months later, the boy was again arrested for larceny. The case against him was clear. This time the Court refused to listen to the pleadings or the promises of the parents, and committed the boy to the House of Refuge. The first time the boy was in the Juvenile Court was perhaps not the first time he had offended. Had we had a Juvenile Court into which he could have been taken when he made his first departure from the path of rectitude he would have been perhaps committed to the Children’s Aid Society, andthat Society would have found him a home with some Christian family and his whole life would have been changed for the better. As it is, he has been committed to an institution whose splendid work in reclaiming incorrigibles gives every hope that the boy will yet turn out a good citizen.

What to do with a bad boy is a problem as old as time. If the wisdom of the past had given us one formula to follow, the task imposed on the Judge dealing with “delinquents” would be simple, but the question every time it arises is as new and as difficult as when it was first presented. That some boys would be better off if severely punished, the first time they lie or steal, is undoubtedly true. That the way of the transgressor is hard ought to be taught both as a moral precept and an actual fact. Still, the question in every case is, how shall this boy be handled? With the best motives and after the most careful and patient inquiry, the Judge can at best but guess. To send the boy home from Court after his guilt had been confessed or established, and do nothing more, as was frequently the old way, was often to give rise to the belief on the part of the boy that the law is not stern but lenient, and that after all, to steal, to be caught, to be convicted and to face a Court is not a serious but a trifling matter. To his companions the released boy was often a sort of a hero. The bad effect on him reached to all who were of his age and class and knew of his lucky escape. On the other hand, to refuse to send the boy home left but one alternative, to commit him to prison or to the House of Refuge.

Whether committed or sent home, the boy was given but little chance in comparison to that which the Court can, under the Juvenile Court Act, now extend to him.

This brings us to consider the probation officer.

The act says, Section 6:

“The Court shall appoint or designate one or more discreet persons, of good character, to serve as probation officers during the pleasure of the Court; said probation officers to receive no compensation from the public treasury. In case a probation officer shall be appointed by any Court, it shall be the duty of the Clerk of the Court, if practicable, to notify the said probation officer in advance when any child is to be brought before the said Court; it shall be the duty of the said probation officer to make such investigation as may be required by the Court, to be present in order to represent the interests of the child when the case isheard, to furnish to the Court such information and assistance as the Judge may require, and to take such charge of any child before and after trial as may be directed by the Court.”

Section 9 is: “In the case of a delinquent child the Court may continue the hearing from time to time, and may commit the child to the care and guardianship of a probation officer duly appointed by the Court, and may allow said child to remain in its own home subject to the visitation of the probation officer, such child to report to the probation officer as often as may be required, and subject to be returned to the Court for further proceedings whenever such action may appear to be necessary; or the Court may commit the child to the care and guardianship of the probation officer, to be placed in a suitable family home, subject to the friendly supervision of such probation officer; or it may authorize the said probation officer to board out the said child in some suitable family home, in case provision is made by voluntary contribution or otherwise for the payment of the board of such child, until a suitable provision may be made for the child in a home without such payment; or the Court may commit the child to a suitable institution for the care of delinquent children.”

It is just here that the Juvenile Court Act, in my judgment, offers its greatest good and opens up a new chance to deal intelligently with the case of a delinquent. Instead of making the child promise to be good, and sending him home, the Court places him in charge of a probation officer, and then lets him go home. Sometimes the result is that, for the first time a boy is given a fair chance in the battle of life to make something of himself. Many of the cases of delinquents brought into Court exhibit weakness, incapacity, and sometimes a worse condition on the part of the parents. Their offending is sometimes passive, sometimes active. The probation officer becomes the boy’s watchman and his friend, guarding him against himself, and, in some cases, against his parents.

A few months’ practical working of the act has shown what a wonderful agency for good the probation officer is. I shall speak of the officer in the feminine, because most of them are women.

She has, by reason of her appointment by the Court, an official position. Her station is one of grave responsibility and great honor, but of no profit. The act distinctly says that the officer shall receive no compensation from the public treasury. This willkeep them from the contaminating touch of party politics, and prevent this particular office being sought after.

The probation officer is the child’s friend, but the Court’s adviser. Each boy is kept under surveillance. If, after the promises he and his parents have made to the Court, he stays away from school (if his parents can send him) or refuses to work or goes with his former associates, if they are bad boys, he is warned, and if he will not mend his ways, he is brought back to Court, and then the Judge has more knowledge of the case to guide him in intelligent action.

The first session of the Juvenile Court in Philadelphia was held July, 1901. Since that time there have been, up to May 21, 1902, 1,378 cases before the Court. Of these, 481 have been dependents, and 897 delinquents. But fifty-six have been sent to the House of Refuge, and of the rest (returned to their homes in almost every case) but thirty-three have been before the Court a second time. Most of these were given a second chance, and in but one case has the Court had a boy brought back more than once. He was, on his fourth appearance before the Court, committed to the House of Refuge.

One probation officer to whom since last July nearly one hundred children have been committed, told me recently that she had had but one child backslide. Surely such a record would be, if there were no more like it, sufficient warrant for saying that the act will do great good.

The whole scheme of the act is to prevent delinquents from becoming criminals. It is an act for child-saving. Its benefits, though conferred directly upon the child, are reaped by the entire community. It is the ounce of prevention which is far, far better than the pound of cure. It aims to place the erring child, of years too tender to yet fully appreciate the dangers ahead, under the restraining and guiding hand of an officer of the Court, who is at the same time the child’s friend.

The restraint is that of oversight; the guidance that of kindly admonition and advice, backed by that power everywhere recognized, the power of the law.

JUVENILE COURTS IN BUFFALO

ByFrederic AlmySecretary and Treasurer Charity Organization Society, Buffalo

ByFrederic Almy

Secretary and Treasurer Charity Organization Society, Buffalo

Juvenile probation is no new thing. It has been used in Massachusetts since 1869, or for over thirty years, and for the same length of time in that state a statute has required that children’s cases should be “heard and determined by themselves, separate from the general and ordinary criminal business of said courts.” There is no separate children’s court in Massachusetts, but in some of the courts the session for adults is formally adjourned, and the room is cleared of all except those who have to do with the juvenile cases; in other courts the session for juveniles is held in a separate room or in the judge’s private room. In either case there are evils, as is shown in a letter from Mr. Charles W. Birtwell, secretary of the Massachusetts Children’s Aid Society: “Unfortunately in all the courts juveniles under arrest are apt to be mixed with adults while waiting during the hour or so preceding the trial. If not under arrest but only summoned, they may wait in the outside lobbies, but get more or less mixed with the throng about and in the court room.”

The first juvenile court was opened in Chicago in 1899 and at once had wide notice, largely through the excellent work of the monthly periodical, theChicago Juvenile Record. It was through this juvenile court that the probation system first became general. Mr. Folks tells us, in his “Care of Delinquent Children,” that “the system did not secure formal adoption, so far as we are aware, in any other state than Massachusetts until the enactment of the juvenile court law in Illinois in 1899.” “In 1901,” he says, “the probation system is in actual operation, or is provided for by statute, in fifteen of the twenty-five largest cities of the United States,” and the number is now rapidly increasing. It is another instance of the contagion of ideas which in this century outstrips the contagion of disease.

On February 26, 1900, the Buffalo Charity Organization Society appointed a committee on probation which held several meetings, but found that nothing could be done without legislation,which it was then too late to procure. A law passed May 1, 1901, through the efforts of this committee, allowed the Buffalo police justice to suspend sentence with juvenile delinquents, and place them under probation for a term not exceeding three months. The act allowed him to appoint five unsalaried probation officers, and provided that when practicable the probation officer should be of the same faith as the child placed in his care. The court opened July 1, 1901. By an amendment passed in February, 1902, the number of probation officers, still unpaid, was increased to ten, and authority was given to extend the probation for additional terms of three months in the discretion of the judge. A state probation law was also passed in 1901, but was so amended that it applied only to those over sixteen years of age. Consequently in New York State, outside of Buffalo, a chance is given to adult delinquents which is denied to little children.

Under the new New York City charter a juvenile court was created for the boroughs of Manhattan and Bronx (excluding Brooklyn), but with no provision for probation. This juvenile court was to open January 1, 1902, but for some reason did not do so.

Judge Murphy, of the Buffalo Police Court, was an active member of the committee of the Charity Organization Society which procured the probation law. Although the law was permissive only, he at once put it into effect, and also on his own motion transferred all his juvenile cases to a separate building, several blocks distant from the police court, where he holds his juvenile court on Tuesday and Friday afternoons. The great success of the court in Buffalo is chiefly due to his interest. Where for any reason a good judge is not available a juvenile court must suffer, for probation gives many opportunities for favoritism to both the judge and the probation officers. It is hardly too much to say that the character of the court will be the same as the character of the judge.

Of the ten probation officers in Buffalo all are unpaid for this special work, but two are truant officers, two are officers of the Charity Organization Society, and one is the head worker of Welcome Hall, a leading settlement. The city is divided into two districts, in each of which there are a Catholic and a Protestant female officer for the girls and the younger boys, and a Catholic and a Protestant male officer for the older boys. There are a Jewish officer and a Polish officer for the city at large.

It is not perhaps desirable to recapitulate here the peculiarities of all the juvenile courts. In Massachusetts and St. Louis the probation officers are paid. In New Jersey the court costs are paid them. In Chicago, Pennsylvania, Milwaukee and Buffalo they are unpaid, or paid from private sources. In Chicago the probation is until the child’s majority. In Boston, as in Buffalo, it is for short terms renewable on their expiration. It seems as if the short term would give the child a goal in sight and so help his striving.

The Buffalo juvenile court has not quite completed its first year, and no definite records have been compiled, but two results are already notable—the decrease in the number of commitments to the truant school and to reformatories, and the increase in the number of children arrested. The first result was expected, for many children are now cared for in their homes under probation who would otherwise have to be sent to the public truant school or to a reformatory. The second result was not anticipated, but is in this way excellent. Much juvenile lawlessness formerly ran riot without arrest because the officers knew that the judge would not send a child away for petty offences, and mere rebuke meant so little that the child fresh from court would jeer at the officer who had arrested him. With probation an arrest is taken more seriously by the children. At a recent session of the court Judge Murphy called attention to this increase in the number of arrests, and recommended legislation which should make convictions in the juvenile court inadmissible as evidence of character in either civil or criminal actions, so that mere juvenile peccadilloes could not constitute a criminal record.

The economy of probation greatly reinforces the support of the system on ethical grounds. It is not often that a measure of social reform makes an immediate appeal to the taxpayer, but probation relieves him from the public maintenance of many delinquents who under this plan are maintained at home at their parents’ charge. In Massachusetts, where probation has been in operation many years, the district attorney has prepared figures showing that it has saved the state much more than the cost of its operation, though it is administered there by salaried probation officers. On the side of morality the saving is still greater, though less definite. If this saving of character could be translated into dollars and cents the cash gain to the state through thediminution of crime would be seen to be even greater than the saving in maintenance.

Again, the presence daily in the court of a group of disinterested men and women of character helps to maintain the moral tone of the court. They sometimes see things which the court unaided might not see. More than once in Buffalo pettifogging lawyers, who have been reaping fees from parents on the pretence that their services caused the judge to put children on probation instead of sending them away, have been excluded from the court on report of the probation officers as to their practices.

The teachers usually co-operate willingly in filling out the weekly cards which show the behavior and the attendance of a child while on probation, and they use their influence to hold children to their best. Some have spoken with wonder of the favorable effect of probation on the school work.

A day in a juvenile court is fascinating, and the experiences of a probation officer are not less so. The little, curly-headed culprits are so anxious to tell their story to the judge, or sometimes so stolid, that either way it is pathetic. There is much weeping when children are found guilty, and sudden relief when the meaning of probation is explained to them, and the confidences made to the probation officer are irresistible. In many of the courts the proceedings are quite informal, and the children stand close to the judge and talk confidentially with him, without fear.

The care taken to keep children from contact with the adult criminal courts extends also to the jail. In several states the law prescribes that children shall not be lodged either in the jail or in the police court. If the child is unable to give bail, some place other than the jail or police court must be provided. In Pennsylvania a separate act, passed after the juvenile court law, authorizes the establishment of houses of detention. In Wisconsin it is provided that when a child has been sentenced he must be kept wholly apart from adult prisoners until he is committed. The period after arrest and before trial is also guarded.

It has been well said that the practice of arresting persons accused of minor offences, who are not in the least likely to fail to appear if merely summoned, is a relic of earlier times and should be abandoned. In Buffalo it is the general practice on arrest to take the child to a station-house and then let him go home underpromise to appear in court at the time stated, and as yet there has been no failure to appear.

Criminal law has relied too much upon confinement and compulsion, both of which involve cost to the state and rancor and sullenness in the individual. The features of probation are first, the retention of natural conditions, in the home, if it is at all fit, and second, loving, patient, personal service. Instead of withdrawing the child from the environment in which it lives, it tries to assist that environment. It is possible to draw many analogies. In medicine we now give fewer drugs and rely on the natural powers of the body with the personal service of trained nurses. In charity we give fewer alms, and rely on the natural resources of the family with the personal service of trained friendly visitors. In government we use less law, but rely on natural forces with the aid of the Church, the school and other instruments of social reform.

With children the question of reformation is especially important. The chief cause of crime has been said to be neither intemperance, nor avarice, nor lust, but neglected childhood, for neglected childhood means neglected character, and at an age when character is still plastic. Children under arrest for the first time are more peculiarly susceptible to influence than even other children, and the impressions made at this crisis go far to fix their lives. If you catch character young, and at the right moments, you can do almost anything with it. It is even possible to confine the baser parts of a child’s life, as the Chinese do the feet of their children, so that the development of these baser parts will be permanently stunted. Swaddling environments, continued for years, can do much to form character by compulsion, so to speak, and to thwart the growth of what is undesirable. This exclusion of evil is the method of the military school and of the reformatory of the military type. There is something unnatural about it, but there is no doubt that in this way habits can be formed; and there is an inertia of character which makes good habits difficult to break as well as bad ones.

The other method is to leave the natural conditions with as little disarrangement as possible; to let the feet grow and become a support for the whole body; to take the activity which might become crime and turn it into industry; to take the affection which might become lust and turn it into love; and to do all this as far as possible under natural conditions. It is possible to dothis, not by a high wall which wards off all contamination but casts a shadow on the young life within, but by applying some antiseptic which will make the contagions of daily life harmless. Those of us who with Milton “cannot praise a fugitive and cloister’d vertue, unexercis’d and unbreath’d,” believe that everywhere character is better formed by liberty than by force. Antiseptics against temptation are being found by modern charity. I would wish to leave a child undisturbed in its home, if the home is decent, and trust to the Church, the school, the tenement house law and the settlements, as antiseptics against contamination; next to this I would leave the child at home, but under probation; next I would seek a foster home, well chosen and well watched; next, for some children, an open reformatory of the free type exemplified in the George Junior Republic; and last, a reformatory of the more military type. In confinement a boy may find himself kindly and wisely treated, but his social side is not much considered, and this is not in keeping with modern pedagogy. Very much can be done through a boy’s affections.

Where the germ of pauperism or of vice cannot be killed, may there not be a treatment by antitoxin, as at the George Republic, by deliberately helping the poison to run its course in a mild form in order to prevent future attacks? It may be well to let a boy be idle and lazy for a time and suffer all the consequences of hunger and cold; to let him be violent, and as a penalty be duly and severely punished by his peers; in fact, to give him a brief rehearsal of life under natural conditions which will be very profitable when life arrives in grim earnest. These lessons are taught in a reformatory of the military type, but the more voluntary and natural the lesson is, and the more the child can be made to feel that he has chosen his own course and experienced its natural result, the deeper will be the impress on his life.

It seems to be the lesson of the past century, the lesson alike of charity, of Christianity, and of civilization, that, in forming character, force must give way to freedom with love. A militant Christianity has already been condemned, and a militant civilization is as bad. I believe in civilization by contact, in civilization by commerce, but not in civilization by conquest. Force leaves rancor and reaction, and the slower method of Christian example is more sure. The United States has been called the pioneer in an age of republics, but it is not through its force, butthrough its example, that in neither North nor South America is there to be found a king. The republics of Central and South America stumble and fall and make many errors, but they are slowly developing good secondary education and commercial stability. India and Egypt, with an original civilization and under as intelligent and benevolent tutelage as the world has ever known, are less fit to-day for self-government. With boy life as with national life, we may well stop to ask whether the least possible interference and the largest possible freedom, even with all the mistakes and struggles which this involves, will not build character most surely in the end.

Back to Index Next