... onuuw'q~"M¢«NMW.-I A HISTORICAL STUDY OF THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT] 3 fff_jf‘§:'j?f*‘f'f:_;:;;faff_;_,§;}ifif 0F PAROLE l‘N MICHTGAN ..... ....... Thesis for the Degree of M. S‘ MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY . Zl-GMUN’D S. KRYSZAK, JR; 1 9.70 [Ll"ULHzllglflflfllflllfllflnfllfl WW. A HISTORICAL STUDY OF THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF PAROLE IN MICHIGAN BY <-.\ \‘2’ ‘1 N a,“ Zigmund Sf Kryszak Jr. A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE School of Criminal Justice 1970 Approved: 71’MM a W (Chairm (Member‘yrr cam) . 14.62"":V (Member) ABSTRACT A HISTORICAL STUDY OF THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF PAROLE IN MICHIGAN BY Zigmund S. Kryszak, Jr. Due to the absence of a major reference concerning parole in Michigan there was an obvious need for a study concerning the origin and development of parole in Michi- gan. Preparing such a work required an in-dpeth study of parole which resulted in a thorough examination of gov- ernors' memoirs, records of the Michigan Department of Corrections, documents of the Michigan Historical Society, taped-recordings and personal interviews. To aid future study, appendices consisting of a thorough documentation of all Michigan laws having an ef- fect on the development of parole in Michigan have been included. A list of parole board personnel and a collec- tion of diagrams illustrating the administrative and Zigmund S. Kryszak, Jr. organizational changes affecting parole have also been included. A history of parole in the United States has been added in order to place the origin of parole in Michigan in the proper time perspective. This thesis offers a chronological examination of the origin and development of parole from 1869 to 1970. This study indicates that the idea of parole originated in Michigan as early as 1869 as the result of a suggestion made by Governor Henry P. Baldwin. Parole in Michigan originated officially in 1895 as a result of Act 218, P.A. 1895. This act gave the governor the authority to authorize and regulate the pa- roling of convicts in Michigan. In 1921 as a result of Act 403, 1921, the first Commissioner of Pardons and Pa-~ roles was appointed. Because of considerable criticism the above system was changed in 1937 by Act 255, P.A. 1937 which called for the appointment of a Corrections Commission consisting of five members. The Corrections Commission existed until 1947 when the legislature authorized a reinstatement of a Zigmund S. Kryszak, Jr. Commissioner of Corrections in order to return the power of granting parole to the governor. However, criticism brought about another organizational change in 1953 which re-established the Corrections Commission as it exists today. In essence this thesis traced the concept of parole from its origin (1869) to its present status (1970). Parole has developed from human error and ex- perimentation, and the Michigan parole system today exists as one of the most advanced in the United States. A HISTORICAL STUDY OF THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF PAROLE IN MICHIGAN BY \ a. T, ,. .5 Zigmund SN Kryszak Jr. A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE School of Criminal Justice 1970 CU __ (,95'332-3 /_ g '7» 7/ The State Has Not Discharged Its Whole Duty To The Criminal When It Has Punished Him Nor Even When It Has Reformed Him. Having Raised Him Up, It Has The‘ Further Duty To Aid In Holding Him Up. The Cincinnati Congress --1870 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS WOrds cannot describe the thanks that I extend to all the people who extended their courtesy, supervision, and materials which enabled this thesis to be completed. It is impossible to thank all these people but I would like to sincerely express a special and most grateful thank you to the following people: To the Michigan Department of Corrections and the Michigan Historical Society for their invaluable contri- bution of materials and help which made possible the com- pletion of this thesis; To the School of Criminal Justice of Michigan State University, and especially to Dr. William Goldberg, Professor and Academic Adviser, for his supervision, ad- vice, counseling, and most importantly for his inspiration in order for me to not only write this thesis but to enter the field of corrections and to pursue a remedy or correct course of action to improve the rehabilitative techniques of the current correctional system of Michigan; iii To the Honorable Francis Castellucci, Macomb County Probate Judge-~Juvenile Division, for his trust and reassurance in me to help him and the entire juve- nile probation staff of Macomb County fight the ever increasing problem of juvenile delinquency and to allow me to make use of the educational techniques obtained at Michigan State University; To My Parents, Mr. and Mrs. Zigmund T. Kryszak Sr., for their love, guidance, inspiration, financial support, and most importantly their faith in me, that continually inspired me to further my education and to pursue the wonderful opportunity of knowledge and education without admitting defeat; and Finally, but most importantly, to Diane F. Krempa, for her invaluable help, understanding, love, and contin- ual encouragement during the periods of disappointment and frustration which enabled me to overcome many obstacles in order to complete this thesis. To Diane I extend my hope and love that someday we may put time aside and look back at this moment and visualize it as a stepping stone in our climb for success and happiness in this world. iv To all the above people I again say thank you and may God bless all of you. Thank you, Zigmund S. Kryszak Jr. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACMOWLE DGWNTS O O O O O 0 O O O O O I O O O O l O O i 1 LIST OF CHARTS O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Viii Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Method of Inquiry. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. THE ORIGIN OF PAROLE IN THE UNITED STATES . . 9 Transportation to America. . . . . . . . . 12 Transportation to Australia. . . . . . . . 14 England's Experience with Ticket-of~Leave. 17 The Irish System of Ticket-of-Leave. . . . 19 Parole in the United States. . . . . . . . 21 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3. PAROLE IN MICHIGAN: ITS ORIGIN TO 1920 . . . 25 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 4. PAROLE IN MICHIGAN: 1921 to 1947 . . . . . . 52 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) Chapter Page 5. DEVELOPMENTS: 1948 to 1970 . . . . . . . . . 85 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 6. SUMMARY 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O C O O 94 Appendices A. Charts of Administrative and Functional Organizations from 1937 to 1966. . . . . . 102 B. Complete Digest of Laws Relating to the Growth of Parole in Michigan . . . . . . . 126 C. Parole Board Personnel: 1894 to 1970 . . . . 232 BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O C 2 39 vii B-Ao 9. g-Ao LIST OF CHARTS Act 255, P.A. 1937 Act 255, P.A. 1937 Functional Org.. . Act 255, P.A. 1937 Act 255, P.A. 1937 Functional Org.. . Act 4, P.A. 1947 - Administrative Org.. Act 4, P.A. 1947 - Functional Org.. . . Parole of Lifers and Long Termers . . . Parole Procedures, Act 4, P.A. 1947 . . Pardon and Commutation of Sentence. . . Comparison of 1937 and 1947 Corrections Act 232, P.A. 1953 Administrative Org.. Act-232, P.A. 1953 Functional Org.. . . January, 1966. Administrative Organization Administrative Org.. Administrative Org.. January, 1966. Functional Organization . viii Page 102 103 104 105 106 107 110 112 114 117 121 122 124 125 Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this thesis is to acquaint the reader with a thorough understanding of the origin.and development of parole in Michigan. In order to accomplish this task the writer found himself involved in a thorough investigation of state laws, governor‘s memoirs, histor- ical documents, tape-recordings, records of the Michigan Department of Corrections, and personal interviews. It was necessary to conduct such an in-depth study because, from the knowledge of the writer and from people involved in the field of corrections in Michigan, there is no com- piled history of parole in Michigan on record. The following thesis will not only present a thor— ough history of parole in Michigan, but it shall contain a-brief history of parole in the United States, a review of the development of the indeterminate sentence law which had a major impact on parole, and the study shall contain a number of diagrams that hopefully will aid the reader‘ in the understanding of the many changes that parole has gone through in the last 100 years. Also included in the appendices is a complete listing of all the major laws passed in Michigan.which affect parole and its develop- ment. The thesis is broken down into three major periods of development with a preceding chapter explaining the growth and development of parole in the United States. The first major period of growth was from the origin of parole (1869) up to 1921. Within this period such high- lights shall be examined as the first parole act passed in Michigan (1895), the first suggestion of parole by gov- ernment officials (1869), and the examination of the ini- tial changes of parole laws and the indeterminate sentence laws. The second major division and period of growth of. parole is from 1921 to 1947. Within this time span such highlights shall be mentioned as the 1921 law which formed the first office of the Commissioner of Corrections, the 1937 Corrections Act which led to the development of a De- partment of Corrections, the establishment of the Lifer Law in 1941, the passage of the 1947 Corrections Act, and a thorough comparison of the 1937 and 1947 Correction Laws. The period from 1921 to 1947 marked a period of major growth and impact on the future development of parole in Michigan. The-last major time period discussed in this thesis is from 1948 to 1970. Highlights that are discussed in this time period are the change of administration of the Director of Corrections in 1953, and the presentation of the present status of parole in Michigan (1970). METHOD OF INQUIRY It is perhaps most appropriate to define the term parole and to state all the implications behind this term. Parole is a procedure by which prisoners are selected for release and a service by which they‘ are provided with necessary controls, assistance, and guidance as they serve the remainder of their sentences within the free community. The prisoner does not have a right to parole, but for his good and the good of the community, most should be given the opportunity of a period of supervision after leaving the regimentation and confines of the in- stitution. To fulfill its dual purpose of protect- ing society and continuing the rehabilitation hope- fully started before leaving the institution, parole must contain several essential elements which shall be discussed.1 l . . . Michigan Department of Correct1ons,-Parole In Michigan (Lansing: The Department, 1968), p. 1. The next best question to ask at this time is why does parole exist? The penal system of this country is built on two basic concepts: deterrence of the criminal and the protection of society. Police apprehend law violat- ors to bring them before the bar of justice and, at the same time, to protect society from their actions. Courts sentence law-breakers to punish them for their offenses and, at the same time, to protect society from being the victim of their criminal acts. Penal and correctional institutions today are looked upon as institutions of training, so that persons com- mitted to such institutions may some day return to their nor- mal place in society. It is at this point that the penal system of the State of Michigan is put to the ultimate test. Do the efforts of the police, the courts, the penal institu- tions fulfill their mission of protecting society? Let us first consider the meaning of ”correction.“ Correction is a process involving all of the agencies of criminal justice: the police, the courts, probation depart- ments, penal and correctional institutions, and parole de- partments. Effective correction implies a continuity of relationship with the role of one agency logically terminating when the role of the next logically begins. In other words, the police present to the court the condi- tions surrounding the criminal act; the court decides the guilt or innocence of the defendant; if he is adjudged guilty, the probation department prepares a report on the social background of the defendant, bringing to the court's attention strengths and weaknesses of the defendant and the cause of his criminal behavior. On the basis of this information and consistent with statutory requirements, the court imposes a sentence believed best for the interest of the individual and the community he has offended. The institution to which he is committed endeavors to continue this individualized treatment, as indicated by the court and later refined by clinical and such other technical tests as the institution can provide. Parole then becomes the final link in this chain of rehabilitation to aid the individual in his re- turn to normal community living and at the same time to provide safeguards to society against the possibility of repeated criminal behavior on the part of the person who has been paroled. Parole is democracy in action. It is designed to meet the individual needs of an offender and in so doing prepare him for a more responsible and more productive role in society. Good parole implies individualized study em- bracing the individual's social past, his institutional adjustment, and the circumstances of life to which he will return if granted parole. It likewise requires supervi-- sion by a competent staff to assure that the plan proposed for an individual offender is carried out and that willful deviation from the conditions of parole results in the parolee's return to confinement. Thus in parole, as in the other areas of correction, the emphasis is on individ— ualized treatment and not on mass care. Parole is indi- vidualized justice. In addition to the protection parole provides so- ciety, it fulfills the objectives of our democratic form of government. It does this despite the fact that an in- dividual may have earned the scorn of his neighbors, be- cause-the theory of parole is ever aware of the basic hu- man dignity of the individual and endeavors to restore and safeguard that dignity. Parole recognizes the importance of the family as a unit and how dependent the success of this country is on family unity. Parole is the medium through which the law violator may be restored to his family when in the opinion of the parole administrator this action appears in the best interests of all concerned. Thus, the intelligent application of parole fulfills all the requirements of good government. Contrary to popular belief, this thesis has marked the origin of the concept of parole back to 1869. In 1869 evidence-has indicated that a request was made for parole by a commission appointed by Governor Henry P. Baldwin. However, the actual beginning of parole, in the form of pardons, as a form of correctional reform for convicted prisoners, occurred in 1885. In 1885 an advisory board on the matter of pardons was established for the purpose of recommending to the Governor inmates who might be granted conditional release which would allow them to reenter so- ciety. That board was abolished in 1891 and the duties placed undethhe responsibilities of the Inspectors of Prisons. An Advisory Board was again established by Act 150, P.A. 1893. In 1895 parole release was established as a power of the Governor. Parole continued to change its characteristics until today. Important dates that shall be presented in this thesis are: 1921, 1937, 1947, 1953, and 1966.2 The complete evolution of parole in Michigan shall be presented in the following thesis. 2Noel P. Fox, "A Survey of the Michigan Corrections System" (survey submitted to Governor G. Mennen Williams of Michigan, June, 1949), p. 4. Chapter 2 THE ORIGIN OF PAROLE IN THE UNITED STATES Before the study of the origin and development of parole in Michigan begins it would be most appropriate to present a brief outline of the growth of parole in the United States. The purpose of this chapter is to corre- late the major growth of parole in Michigan with that of the United States. There are a number of false beliefs that exist re- garding parole and its origin. There is for example the belief that parole developed from the Australian system of the ticket-of-leave. The other false belief is that rules and regulations surrounding parole are those originated by members of boards of parole or administrators of parole. Actually, parole did not originate from any specific source or experiment, but as an outgrowth of a number of inde- pendent measures, including the conditional pardon,éappren- ticeship by indenture, the transportation of criminals to America and Australia, the English and Irish experiences 10 with the system of ticket-of-leave, and the work of Ameri- can prison reformers during the nineteenth century. Conditional Pardons and Transportation to America The transportation of English criminals to the American colonies began early in the seventeenth century. The precedent for this removal of criminals from England can be found in a law passed in 1597 which provided for the banishment "beyond the seas, of rogues" who appeared to be dangerous. The Privy Council, as early as 1617 passed an order granting reprieves and stays of execution to persons convicted of robbery, who were strong enough to be employed in service beyond the seas.4 The transportation of criminals to America was sup- ported by the London, Virginia, and Massachusetts companies. The purpose behind the above plan was to relieve the acute economic conditions in England during the above period. 3Frederick A. Moran, The Origin of Parole (New York: nfn., 1948), p. 3. 41bido’ pp. 3-40 11 Taxes were high, unemployment was widespread, and the En- glish labor market was overcrowded. Even though the above situations existed there were a number of groups in England who opposed colonization. It was in an effort to avoid an- tagonizing these groups and at the same time to satisfy the need for labor in the colonies, that the government devised a plan to transport convicted felons to America. The plan was approved by the King and he thus granted reprieves and stays of execution to the convicted felons who were physi- cally able-to be employed in service. The King's proce- dures to select these individuals were similar to today's methods of recommendation for paroles and pardons. Perhaps a brief description of the English system of granting reprieves would be most beneficial at this time. In England, court officials would compile a list of names and have them signed by the judge or mayor. This list of names would then be sent to the presiding Secre- tary of.State. In cases where a death sentence had been imposed, a stay of execution was automatically granted until the King had reviewed the recommendation made by the judge. The pardons which were granted were written in 12 Latin and accompanied by a docket in English. This written order included the name of the prisoner, his crime, and in some instances, a brief statement giving-the reason or rea- sons why clemency had been granted.5 TRANSPORTATION TO AMERICA During the early days of transportation a contrac- tor usually received a fee of five pounds from the govern- ment for each prisoner that was transported. This practice came to an end in 1717 when the "Laws of George"'6 provided against the exchange of money and stated that the contrac- tor could only be given "property in service" of the pris- oner until the expiration of his full term. Upon delivery of the prisoner the government was no longer responsible for the welfare or behavior of a prisoner unless he vio- lated the conditions of parole by returning to England be- fore his sentence was terminated.‘ 13 Once the prisoner reached the colonies the individ- ual was sold to the highest bidder and the contractor trans- ferred the "property in service" agreement to the new master. At this time the individual became an indentured servant and no longer a prisoner of the government. It should be noted that the indenture process used in the colonies is similar to the conditional release method used today in the penal systems throughout the country. To- day, the prisoner who is granted a conditional release makes an agreement to accept certain conditions set down by the parole board. In essence, the indenture process was quite similar in scope and application. The Revolutionary War brought an end to the trans- portation of prisoners to America. It should be~pointed out that the colonists opposed the transportation system quite vigorously before the Revolutionary War and tried to end the practice by imposing taxes on each individual trans- ported to and received by colonists. However their attempts failed.7 SIbid. , p. 5. 6Laws of George I, Laws of 1717, Chapter 11. 7Ibid., p. 7. l4 Bentham, in reviewing criminal laws, comments that: Transportation had all the defects punishment can have and none of_the good qualities it might have: that under the transportation system, bond- age was added to banishment, but the convict who was able to offer the shipmaster a sum larger than that offered by an American colonist, could procure his liberty at the first port of call en- route to America.8 TRANSPORTATION TO AUSTRALIA Although the Revolutionary War ended the transpor- tation of prisoners to America, England did not repeal her transportation laws. Thus, judges continued to impose sen- tences of transportation and detention centers became un-v sanitary and overcrowded. In order to relieve the situa- tion England began to grant pardons freely. In a very short time an outbreak of crime occurred and England was forced to resort back to their transportation law. Austra- lia, which was discovered by Captain Cook in 1770 was soon designated by the King as a convict settlement. In May of 1787 the first fleet sailed and arrived at Botany Bay in 1733, 8 . . . . Coleman Phillipson, Three Criminal LawTReformers (New York: Dutton Press, 1923), p. 209. 15 Australia followed a different procedure in dealing with prisoners than America. All the expenses of the plan and the behavior and welfare of the prisoners were under the control of the English government. The prisoners did not become indentured servants but remained prisoners under the control of the government. In 1790 a special act gave to the governors of the penal settlements power to remit sentences of transported prisoners. The first governor of Australia received in- structions from the government regarding the emancipation and discharge from servitude of prisoners whose conduct and work records indicated that they were worthy to receive a. grant of land. This practice soon became known as a ticket- of—leave. The ticket-of-leave was merely a declaration signed by the governor granting a dispensation to the convict from being bound to government work and to seek employment within a specified district. The ticket stated the follow- ing: 9Frederick A. Moran, The Origin.of Parole (New York: n.n., 1948), p. 3. 16 It is His Excellency, the Governor‘s pleasure to dispense with the government work of . . . tried at . . . convicted of . . . and to permit . . . to employ . . . (off government stores) in any lawful occupation within the district of . . . for his own advantage during good behavior or un- til His Excellency's further pleasure shall be made known.10 In 1811 certain.regu1ations were placed around the issuance of the ticket-of-leaveo Prisoners had to serve specific periods of time before they could be granted a ticket-of-leave. In 1821 a regular scale of time was designated by the government. Perhaps the height of penal history in England was reached in 1840 when Alexander Maconochie, governor of Nor— folk Island, Australia, devised a method of granting good time to prisoners. He proposed that: the duration of the sentence be measured by labor and good conduct within a minimum of time, that the labor thus required be represented by marks proportional to the original sentence, the pris- oner to earn these marks in penal servitude be- fore discharge.ll Shortly after England assigned a group of commis- sioners to judge people who should be granted a ticket-of- 1eave. This group had such an impact on the field of t 10Ibid., p. 10. 11Ibid., p. 11. 17 penology that it eventually led to the establishment of the boards of parole in the United States. In 1867 the transportation of prisoners to Australia was terminated. ENGLAND'S EXPERIENCE WITH TICKET-OF-LEAVE By 1817 provisions had been made in America to adopt the good time procedures which had been established in Australia. In 1853 England passed the English Penal Servitude-Act. This act substituted transportation for imprisonment. The act also specified the length of time prisoners were required to serve before becoming eligible for conditional release on a ticket—of—leave. America did not develop the use of the indeterminate sentence until a quarter century later. The following conditions were endorsed on the li- cense of every convict released on a ticket-of-leave in England: 1. The power of revoking or altering the license of a convict will most certainly be ex- ercised in the case of misconduct. 2. If, therefore, he wished to retain the privilege which by his good behavior under penal discipline he has obtained, he must prove by his 18 subsequent conduct that he is really worthy of Her Majesty's clemency. 3. To produce a forfeiture of the license, it is by no means necessary that the holder should be convicted of any new offense, if he associates with notoriously bad characters, leads an idle or dissolute life, or has no vis- ible means of obtaining an honest livelihood, etc., it will be assumed that he is about to, relapse into crime, and he will be at once ap- prehended and recommitted to prison under his original sentence.12 The program was accepted by the British public as a reformative plan which granted release to those criminals who had earned such a privilege. It cannot go without say- ing that the public remembered the outbreak of crime which occurred in England in the late 1700's and were somewhat concerned and doubtful of its implementation. Within three years crime had once again increased. The public directed the blame of the increase of crime on men who had been re- leased on the ticket-Ofeleave. "The public became con- vinced that the ticket-of-leave was not only a menace to public safety but also a failure."13 The government soon realized that if the ticket-of-leave was to be successful the released men would have to be supervised by the govern- ment. 12Ibid., p. 14. l31bid., p. 17. 19 Within six years England began to designate super- visors for the men released on a ticket-of—leave. Super- vision was first placed in the hands of the police and this practice led to the eventual development of a Prisoner's Aid Society. This supervisory agency tried to follow the effective programs of parolee supervision which were adopted in Ireland. THE IRISH SYSTEM OF TICKET-OF-LEAVE In 1854 Sir William Crofton became the head of the Irish prison syStem. Sir William Crofton believed that prisons should not only be used as a detention center but that they should become institutions of rehabilitation. Under Crofton, the system became known for its three stages of penal servitude. Of particular interest is Crofton's second.and third stages. The second stage adopted a means «of classification which was governed by marks obtained for good conduct and achievement in education and industry. The third stage was the use of indeterminate prisons where conditions were made to resemble the outside society as 20 much as possible. Very little restraint was used. The ad- ministrators of these institutions placed the success of their system on the cooperation between the inmate and the prison officials to reach the ultimate goal of rehabilita- tion. Ireland also initiated a ticket-of-leave system which required that the ticket-of-leave be signed by the Chief Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. The Irish ticket-of-leave imposed the following conditions: 1. The holder shall preserve this license and produce it when called upon to do so by a magistrate or police officer. 2. He shall abstain from any violation of the law. 3. He shall not habitually associate with notoriously bad characters, such as reported thieves and prostitutes. 4. He shall not lead an idle and dissolute life, without means of obtaining an honest.live— lihood.l4 Unlike England, Ireland had organized a program of supervision of the released prisoners. Men living in the rural areas were supervised by civilian employees who were known as Inspectors of Released Prisoners. These men-had the responsibility of supplying a job for the released man 14Ibid., p. 21. 21 as well as meeting with them at specified intervals of time. The conditionally released men were compelled to notify their employer of their criminal record, thus re- ducing the fear of police interference. Contrary to En- gland, Ireland had the support of both the convicted crim— inal and the public. After 1864 both England and Ireland adopted the use of the Prisoner's Aid Society. These private agencies were subsidized by the government and had the responsibil- ity of working closely with the released prisoner. These agencies could be compared with the existing parole agen- cies under.government control in the United States today. PAROLE IN THE UNITED STATES By 1865 the Crofton Plan had been widely publicized throughout the world. Americans called for a new and effec- tive method of handling convicted criminals. Much opposi- tion was voiced to the Crofton system because certain offi- cials felt that "it would be un-American to place any indi- . . . . 15 Vidual under police superViSion." However, Crofton wrote l5113151., p. 24. 22 a letter to these officials and stressed that in Ireland police could place these men under the supervision of compe- tent individuals in the community who could serve as custo- dians for those men released on a ticket-of—leave. He sug- gested that the penal officials have the criminal-specify upon release a "next friend" who could be relied on to help supervise his behavior. In 1876 Elmira Reformatory in New York was opened. The first superintendent, Z. R. Brockway, drafted a pro- posal which was to be implemented in the Elmira Reforma- tory. His measure outlined the following features: 1. an indeterminate or indefinite sentence,- the length of time served to be dependent upon the behavior and capacity of the prisoners, within statutory limitations. 2. the status and privileges according to the- prisoner, as in the Crofton plan, were to be dee termined by his behavior and progress. 3. education was to be compulsory. 4. provision was made for the release on parole of carefully selected prisoners.16 As early as 1839 George Combe, a Scottish philos- opher, visited America to lecture and had mentioned the idea of indeterminate sentence, parole, and the system under which today's boards of parole operate. However, 16Ibid., p. 25. 23 parole originated at Elmira Reformatory some forty years later. Some of the conditions facing the parolee at that time were: 1) before being considered for parole each inmate was required to maintain a good conduct record for twelve months, 2) he had to secure the confidence of the prison superintendent and managers, and 3) he was required to present_suitable plans for permanent employment. Upon release the parolee was compelled to remain in his desig— nated employment for at least six months and report on the first of every month to his guardian and report his situa- tion and conduct.17 The philosophy at that time was to have the parolee return to his place of habitation on the basis that it would be easier for the man to adjust to his original habi- tat. Paroled prisoners were not permitted to conceal or deny their past history. Monthly reports certified by the employer and supervisor were required. Eventually the United States developed its own system of parole and through years of both hardship and limited success the parole system of the United States has developed into an effective and worthwhile system. 17Ibida 1 Pp. 27-28. 24 SUMMARY In this chapter parole was found to exist as far back as 1597 when England initiated its system of trans— porting criminals to America as a form of punishment. This chapter has shown the reader that parole in the United States is an outgrowth of a number of factors such as trans- portation of criminals, ticket-of-leaves, indentured slav- ery, and conditional pardons. In essence, parole in the United States developed from both the positive and negative experiences of different countries in their search of a method to deal with criminals. The chapter has also offered the reader a time prospective in order to place parole in a specific time sequence. It is hoped that the above approach and the ma- terial offered in this chapter is a help to the reader in understanding the development of parole in Michigan in re- spect to the importance that other countries had on the development of parole in the United States. In other words, parole is an outgrowth of human errors and human ideas. Chapter 3 PAROLE IN MICHIGAN: ITS ORIGIN TO 1920 The actual origin of parole in Michigan has been the subject of much debate. A number of officials cur- rently associated with parole in Michigan place the origin of parole in 1885 when an advisory board on the matter of pardons-was established for the purpose of making recom- mendations to the Governor regarding inmates who might be granted conditional licenses to go at large.‘ It should be noted that the above board did not deal with parole but with pardons exclusively. As of 1885 there were no writ- ten laws or rulings on the books concerning parole, as we know it today. In 1895 parole release became an estab- lished law and function of the Michigan Department of Corrections. This thesis designates the law of 1895 as the official origin of parole in Michigan. Although 1895 marks the official establishment of parole in Michigan, forms of parole were being considered as earlyas 1869. Evidence of this fact may be found by 26 examining a report submitted to Governor Henry P. Baldwin of Michigan by a commission appointed to examine the penal, reformatory, and charitable institutions of the State of Michigan. In this report it was stated: But the most perfect conception of prison. discipline must be comparatively valueless, un- less adequate provisions be made for the welfare~ of discharged convicts . . . . When a discharged convict re-enters the world, he may have the best intentions as to his future life and the strongest resolves to do right and pursue an honest career. But in looking for employment he has to lie about his previous record to secure a job. If he yields to this first temptation where can he go and be certain that sooner or later his having been a< convict will not be discovered. To resist these successfully he must be aided by some kindly influence for his moral support. Society owes him the aid, not only for his benee fit but for his own protection. If it be afforded, he is likely to avoid evil; if withheld he is likely to become only more hardened and embittered against society and to return with added violence to criminal pursuits.18 It is quite evident that a system of parole and supervision was being considered by the commission in 1869, but little action was taken at this time to provide for a parole system. 18Report of the Special Commissioners to Examine the Penal, Reformatory and Charitable Institutions of the. State of Michigan (Property of the Michigan Department of Corrections), report of Commissioners Cutter, Walker, and Rankin, April 3, 1869, p. 59. 27 In 1871, Act 192 provided for the appointment of a board of commissioners for the general supervision of penal, pauper, and reformatory institutions and defined their du- ties and powers. This act called for the appointment of three qualified people to constitute "The Board of State Commissioners." The duties of the board were as follow: The said Commissioners, by one of their num-~ ber, or by their secretary, shall at least once in each year, visit and examine into the condi- tion of each and every of the city and county: poor-houses, county jails or other places for the detention of criminals or witnesses: and~ the said board, or a majority thereof, with- their secretary, shall at least once in each year, visit and examine the Reform School, State Prison and county asylums for the insane, and the deaf, dumb and blind, and for the purpose of‘ ascertaining the actual condition of the institu- tions by them or by either of them visited, the method of instruction, government, or management therein pursued, the official conduct of the sue perintendents or other officers and employees in charge thereof, or connected therewith, the con- dition of the buildings, grounds, or other prop- erty thereunto belonging, and the facts as to all other matters in any manner pertaining to the usefulness and proper management of the in- stitutions, poor-houses, and jails above named.19 This Board was responsible for the examinations of the State Prisons and agencies dealing-with the criminal and underprivileged segments of society. This Board was 19Michigan, Act 192, P.A. 1871, Section 3. 28 to investigate the crime problems and eventually establish a system of parole in Michigan. Without this Board, the growth of parole could have been delayed for a much longer period of time. In 1879, under Act 82, the name of the above Board of Commissioners was changed to the Board of Corrections . . . 20 . . . . . and Charities. Its functions and responSibilities re- mained the same. In 1881 the law designated the exact duties of each commissioner. The most important section of this act is Section 6 of the law. The importance of the act lies in the investigations and reports of the com- missioners. It was through these reports that the Gover— nors recognized the need for change in the penal institu- tions and the need for supervised parole services. Sec- tion 6 provides the following: On or before the first day of October, in the year eighteen hundred and seventy-two, and in each second year thereafter, the said board shall report in writing to the Governor, fully, the result of their investigation, together with such other information and recommendations as they may deem proper, including their opinions and conclusions as to the necessity of further legislation to improve the condition and extend the usefulness of the various state, county, and 20Michigan, Act 82, P.A. 1879. 29 other institutions by them visited; and the said commissioners, or either of them, shall make any special investigation into alleged abuse in any of the institutions which by this act they are authorized to visit, whenever the Governor shall so direct, and report the result thereof to him: at such reasonable time as he shall prescribe. And whenever any abusive treatment of those con- fined in any of said institutions shall come to the knowledge of said commissioners, which, in their opinion, requires immediate attention and redress, they shall forthwith report the facts of such abusive treatment to the governor, with such recommendations for the correction of the same as they shall deem proper.21 In 1885 the pardoning power of the Governor was brought to the floor of the legislature for consideration. A number of questions arose from a plea issued by Governor JosiahVL Begole on January 8, 1885 before the Senate. His plea was as follows: The pardoning power, with its unpleasant and wearying responsibilities, should not be placed upon the shoulders of one man. No matter how well deserved a pardon may be, popular opinion will always be divided as to its propriety. While a board may do wrong as well as a Governor, politicians and political papers, hard up for something to find fault with, will not be so likely to ascribe each pardon or commutation to total depravity on the part of the pardoning power. 21Michigan, Laws Establishing and Relating to Duties of State Board of Corrections and Charities, Sec. 6 (1881). 30 After some consideration I am inclined to think that the Supreme Court with an extra clerk, to be known as pardon clerk, would make an excel- lent Board of Pardons, probably as satisfactory to the people as any that could be named. On their recommendation only should pardons be signed and issued by the Governor.22 The issue did not end with Governor Begole's sena- torial address. Newly-elected Governor Russell A. Alger on April 30, 1885 also presented an address to the Senate which requested the appointment of an advisory board on the matter of pardons. His presentation included the fol- lowing: Since my inaugural, and after investigation I have changed my views somewhat, and now recom- mend that a board consisting of four, two from each of the dominant political parties, with such compensation as will secure able talent,» be appointed as an advisory board, whose duty it shall be to investigate the cases of such convicts in our State Prison and House of Cor- rection as may apply, and to report to the Ex- ecutive with such recommendations as in their judgment seems best, either as to pardons, com- mutations, or non-action. After a full examin- ation of each case is made the recommendations so made to be acted upon by the Executive as he in his judgment shall deem best.23 2 . . Messages of the Governors of the State of Michi- g_a_n: Governor Josiah W. Begole Address to the Senate, Jan. 8, 1885 (Lansing, Michigan Historical Society, 1927), p.508. 3Messages of the Governors of the State of Michi- gan: Governor Russell A. Alger Address to the Senate, 31 As a result of the above statements and much de- bate Act 200 of P.A. 1885 was passed by the legislature which established an advisory board in the matter of par- dons. The duties of the board were as follows: It shall be the duty of said board to inves- tigate the cases of such convicts now or here- after confined in the State Prisons and house or Houses of Correction as may petition for par- don, and report to the Governor the results of their investigations, with such recommendations as in their judgment shall seem expedient either in respect to pardons, commutations, or refusal of pardon or commutation. Upon receiving the result of any such examination, together with the recommendations aforesaid, the Governor may, at his discretion, upon such conditions, with such restrictions and under such limitations as he may deem proper, grant the desired pardon.or commutation: and he may issue his warrant to all proper officers to carry into effect such pardon or commutation, which warrant shall be obeyed and executed instead of the sentence originally awarded.24 Act 200 of P.A. 1885 was significant for two major reasons. First, the governor began to ask for outside help in dealing with the release of convicts, which ulti- mately shed light on a system of releasing prisoners and secondly, the system began to break away from strong April 30, 1885, Vol. 3 (Lansing: Michigan Historical So- ciety, 1927), p. 531. 24Michigan, Act 200, P.A. 1885, Section 6. 32 political play. With all the attention focused on pardon- ing powers, the idea of parole, which was being introduced throughout the United States as mentioned previously, be- gan to gain support in the eyes of the lawmakers. The indeterminate sentence law was passed in 1889 and paved the way for a parole system which followed in 1895. The indeterminate sentence law met strong opposi- tion and was nearly defeated by the Senate. One of the chief opposers of the indeterminate sentence law and a parole system was Governor Cyrus G. Luce who made the fol- lowing public statement: In the State of Ohio the system of paroling prisoners has been adopted. They are permitted to go out before the expiration of sentence, un- der rules and regulations established by the Board of Managers; but never until they have served the minimum time, nor can they be held beyond the max- imum time provided by law for the offense committed. This is a measure commended by prison reform asso- ciations, and by managers of some of our prisons, and while I am not thoroughly convinced that the anticipated benefits will be derived from its adoption, yet is commended to your careful consid- eration. Its provisions must be guarded in every particular, or evils greater than those now exist- ing are likely to grow out of it, and if‘adOpte , our whole prison management must be revised and: changed. 5Messages of the Governors of the State of Michi- gan: Governor Cyrus G. Luce, Vol. 3 (Lansing: Michigan Historical Society, 1927), p. 596. 33 After careful consideration of the issue Governor Luce came forward with another continuing statement which stressed the precautions which must be taken if parole was going to be used in the State of Michigan. Another very important feature that must be embraced in this law to make it effective and useful, is, provisions must be made for the em- ployment of the prisoner before he is permitted to leave the prison. Wisdom and discretion must here be used in regard to the character of the employer and of the employment. Indeed this is the chief virtue of the whole system. One of the difficulties that confront men either going out on parole, or at the expiration of the sen- tence, is the want of homes and employment. Men often go out from the prisons with a firm deter- mination to live better lives, but they have dif- ficulty in finding employment: they are embar- rassed at every turn: their honest efforts to secure honorable employment are frustrated. And one of the greatest reforms being instituted in connection with prisons and prisoners, is, to adopt means and methods whereby employment may be secured. Here is broad field in which re- formers can and do labor . . . . If the parole system is adopted those who go out under.its- provisions must be carefully guarded and pro- tected. The whole system of treating prisoners has been changed and greatly improved. Now the effort is being made, with measurable success, to reform the lives, improve and elevate the thoughts of those within prison walls. And in consideration of this law this feature of it must not be forgotten.26 26Ibid., p. 597. 34 Surviving opposition, the indeterminate sentence act became law and was designated as Act 228, P.A. 1889. The purpose of the act was to provide for indeterminate sentences and disposition, management, and release of criminals under such sentence. The act called for the following: . . . any person hereafter convicted of,a crime, except of a person sentenced for life . . . may be, in the discretion of the court, a general sentence of imprisonment in that one of the prisons provided by law for the offense of which he is convicted. The term of such imprisonment of any person so convicted and sentenced may be terminated by the board as authorized by this act: but such imprisonment shall not exceed the maximum term provided by law for the crime for which the prisoner was convicted and sentenced; and no prisoner shall be released until after he shall have served at least the minimum term provided by law for the crime for which he is convicted.27 It is evident that the idea of parole had been accepted and that a law concerning the parole of prisoners was soon to follow. (The complete indeterminate sentence act can be found in Appendix B.) In 1891 the advisory board on the matter of par- dons and paroles was abolished and was reorganized as the 27Michigan, Act 228, P.A. 1889, Section 1. 35 Inspectors of Prisons. The act was designated as Act 140, P.A. ory The 1891. The purpose of the act was to:‘ Provide for a State board of inspectors who shall perform the duties now performed by the advisory board in the matter of pardons and who shall have the complete management and control of the State Prison at Jackson, the State House of Correction and Reformatory at Ionia, the Michigan Asylum for Insane Criminals at Ionia, the branch of the State Prison at Marquette, the Reform School.for Boys at Lansing, and the Industrial Home for girls at Adrian, and to abolish all existing boards and to annul all existing appointments.28 Two years later under Act 150, P.A. 1893 an advis- board on the matter of pardons was again established. duties of the board were as follows: It shall be the duty of the board to fully and carefully investigate the merits of every application for pardon, commutation of sentence, or license to be at large and it shall thereupon recommend, in writing, to the governor, the ad-- visability of granting or rejecting the same. Such board shall also transmit to the governor, with its recommendation, a full and concise statement of the facts in each case, together with all papers and documents relating thereto. No recommendation shall be made unless it shall receive the sanction of at least three members of said board.29 Both of these acts can be located in Appendix B. 28Michigan, Act 140, P.A. 1891. 29Michigan, Act 150, P.A. 1893, Section 6. 36 In 1895 the first official parole act was passed and approved by the legislature. The act gave the governor the right to authorize and regulate the paroling of con- victs in Michigan. Act 218, P.A. 1895 stated the follow- ing: Section 1. The People of the State of Mich- igan enact that the governor shall have authority, under such rules and regulations as he may pre- scribe, to issue a parole or permit to go at large, to any convict who now is, or hereafter- may be, imprisoned in any of the prisons of this state, under a sentence other than a life sen- tence, who may have served the minimum term pro- vided by law for the crime for which he was con- victed, and who has not previously served two terms of imprisonment in any penal institution for a felony. Section 2. Every such convict, while on parole, shall remain in the legal custody and under the control of the governor, and shall be subject at any time to be taken back within the inclosure of the prison from which he was there- by permitted to go at large, for any reason that shall be satisfactory to the governor, and at his sole discretion: and full power to retake and return any such paroled convict to the prison from which he Was permitted to go at large is hereby expressly confered upon the governor, whose written order, when duly attested by the secretary of state shall be a sufficient warrant, authorizing all officers named therein to return to actual custody in the prison from which he was permitted to go at large, any such convict, and it is hereby made the duty of all officers to execute Said order the same as ordinary crim- inal process.30 3OMichigan, Act 218, P.A. 1895, Section 1 & 2. 37 For the record, the above act was reorganized as the official beginning of parole in Michigan. After one complete year the parole system was re- viewed and evaluated by the governor and his staff who found that only four.of the seventy-one convicts released on parole were returned to prison. Of the four returned, one had been using intoxicating liquors and the other three had been convicted of burglary while on parole. As a re- sult of the above violations and according to charter the governor called together wardens of the-Michigan Correc- tional institutions and members of the commission for counsel. As a result of the meeting new rules and regu- lations were set up before a convict was released on pa- role. The rules were: 1) prisoner must be in the first grade, 2) conduct in prison must indicate that he is de- serving of parole, 3) some person must be found who is willing to serve as a first friend of the convict, and who will furnish guarantee of employment, and 4) endorse- ment of the first friend must come from a sheriff or pro- secuting attorney of the county from which the individual was convicted. When all of the above criteria had been 38 met and reports were sent to the warden.and if he found them to be favorable he then recommended to the parole board that the convict be paroled. After this the parole board considered the issue and sent their findings to the Governor for final action.31 However, within a few months after the above regu- lations were set, the wardens and commissioners met again and further established more stringent rules and regula- tions that were divided between the governor, the board of control, and the parolees upon release. The Governor's rules were as follow: (1) No prisoner shall be eligible to parole until he has served one-half of the full term for which he was sentenced. (2) No prisoner shall be eligible to parole until he has been in the first grade one year, but-this rule shall not be construed as prohibiting the parole of any prisoner who has served three-fourths of his full sentence, and whose parole shall not be barred by the statute. (3) No prisoner under parole shall be permitted to leave the State of Michigan until his final discharge. (4) Paroled prisoners must provide transporta- tion to their place of employment. 31Messages of the Governors of the State of Mich- igan: Governor John T. Rich, Vol. 3 (Lansing:‘ Michigan Historical Society, 1927), p. 737. (5) 39 No prisoner can be paroled until he has served the minimum term provided by law for the offense for which he was sentenced and in cases where the statute does not provide a minimum term, the minimum shall be construed to be sixemonths.32 The rules of the Board of Control for governing prisoners were: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Three grades shall be established in the several prisons of Michigan. Upon arrival the prisoners shall be placed in the second grade and after having served one-fourth of their full sentence without any written reports against them for misbe- havior shall be eligible to promotion to) the.first grade by resolution of the board, provided that no prisoner shall be promoted to the first grade until he has served six months: and any inmate shall be eligible to promotion after having served one year with- out written reports. If any written report shall be made against any prisoner in the first or second grade, said report shall be laid before the Board of Control and the board may reduce the prisoner to the grade below. After being so reduced the prisoner shall remain in the lower grade until again pro- moted for special merit or service, by reso- lution of the-board.v All prisoners who have served two years or more at the date of the adoption of this 32Board of Control and Officers, Biennial Report of the State House of Correction and Branch of State Prison in Upper Peninsula (Lansing: Robert Smith Print- ing Co., 1897). pp. 84-85. 40 rule and whose record for a year has been clear shall be considered first grade men.33 And finally, the rules governing the conduct of prisoners while on parole. They were: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) The paroled prisoner shall proceed at once to the place of employment provided for him, and there remain. In case he finds it necessary to change his employment or residence, he shall first ob- tain the written consent of the Governor through the warden of the prison from which he was paroled. He shall, on the first day of-each month, until his final release, transmit to the warden of the prison from which he was- paroled a report of himself, stating whe- ther he has been constantly at-work during the proceeding month and if not, why-not: how much he has earned, and how much he has expended, together with a general statement as to his surroundings and pros- pects, which report must be endorsed by his employer or-some other suitable citi- zen designated by the Governor. He shall in all respect conduct himself honestly, avoid evil associations and in general pursue the course of a law-abiding citizen. As soon as possible after reaching his des- tination, he shall report to his employer, showing him his parole, and at once enter upon the employment provided for him. He shall, while on parole, remain in the legal custody and under control of the Governor of the state. He shall be liable to be retaken and again confined within the enclosure of the prison 33 Ibid., p. 85. 41 from which he was paroled for any reason, or reasons, that shall be satisfactory to the Governor, and at his sole discretion until he receives a copy of his final dis- charge through the warden. (8) A convict on parole will receive the bone- fit of good time and suffer the same for-. feitures under the statute as if he were within the prison enclosure. (9) If he fails to report to the warden on the first of each month, or is guilty of doing any acts prohibited by the prison rules, he will be subject to forfeitures. (10) If he fails to return to the prison enclo- sure when required by the Governor so to do, or if he makes escape while on parole, he will be treated in all respects as if he had escaped from the prison enclosure.34 At this point, a comparison can be drawn between the rules designated by the counsel concerning the conduct of the released convict. It is quite evident that the second set of rules were much more complete than the first set of rules. This would indicate that after a few months of analysis of parole rules the counsel decided that much more supervised control was needed. A parallel can also be drawn with the existing parole conditions throughout the United States as mentioned in chapter two. Although stringent rules were set down for the released convict very little was done concerning the ‘ 34Ibid., PP. 86 & 87. 42 supervision of the convict while he was out on parole. According to the parolee‘s rules he was to submit, on the first day.of each month, until his final release a state- ment concerning his employment and general well—being. In a statement concerning the prison system of Michigan, 0. M. Barnes made the following suggestion: It would increase the efficiency of the parole law if the warden were permitted to send some competent officer of his prison to visit occasionally some of the convicts on parole. Some states have a state agent independent of prisons who does the work of guiding parolees. The prisoner on parole is still a prisoner of the prison from which he went out. The effect will be better if one from that prison visits him while on parole. No new officer is needed, just reimbursement for travel.35 Very little legislative action was taken on parole in the early stages of the 1900's. The parole laws re- mained the same. However, some action did occur concern- ing the indeterminate sentence law. This law will be dis- cussed because of its important bearing on parole. As it was mentioned earlier the indeterminate sentence act orig- inated in 1889 under Act 228. This act eventually was found to be unconstitutional. In 1903 another indeterminate 35O. M. Barnes, Prison System of Michigan (Lansing: Robert Smith Printing Co., 1899), p. 30. 43 act was presented to the legislature and approved on May 21, 1903. The act was to provide for the indeterminate sentence and for the disposition, management, and release of criminals under.such sentence, and for the expense attending the same. Section one of Act 136 stated the following: Every sentence to the State Prison at Jack- son, to the Michigan.Reformatory at Ionia, to the State House of Correction and Branch of the State Prison in the Upper Peninsula, and to the. Detroit House of Correction, of any person here- after convicted of a crime, except of a person sentenced for life, or a child under fifteen. years of age, shall be an indeterminate sentence as hereinafter provided. The term of imprison? ment of any person so convicted and sentenced shall not exceed the maximum term provided by law for which the prisoner shall be discharged until after he shall have served at least the minimum term as provided by law for the crime for which he was convicted: Provided, that in all cases where the maximum sentence, in the discretion of the court, may be for life or any number of years, the court imposing sentence shall fix the maximum sentence: Provided fur- ther, that in all cases where no minimum sentence is fixed by law,-the court imposing sentence shall fix such minimum, which minimum shall not be less than six months.36 In order to relate this act to parole it provided for the following parole conditions: 36Michigan, Act 136, P.A. 1903, Section 1. concerning the indeterminate sentence law. A uniform blank form of application for pa- role shall be prescribed by the Governor and supplied by the Secretary of State to the penal institutions named in section one of this act. Upon the expiration of the minimum term for which he was sentenced as aforesaid, any pri- soner may apply to the warden or superintendent of the institution wherein he is confined, and thereupon an application for parole shall be sent.by the warden or superintendent to the Governor. Upon receipt of said application the Governor may order such investigation by the Advisory Board in the Matter of Pardons as he may deem advisable and necessary. Authority to: grant paroles under such rules and regulations as he may adopt is hereby conferred exclusively upon the Governor: Provided, that no prisoner who has been twice previously convicted of a felony shall be eligible to parole under the. provisions of this act: Provided further, that while at large by authority of a parole granted as aforesaid, the person so paroled shall be deemed to be still serving out the sentence im- posed upon him, and shall be entitled to good time the same as if confined in prison.37 The entire act_can be found in Appendix B. 44 A few years later in 1905 further action was taken tence, and for the expense surrounding the action. 37Michigan, Act 136, P.A. 1903, Section 4. ACt 184' P.A. 1905, provided for the indeterminate sentence as a punish- ment for crime, upon the conviction, and for the detention and release of persons in prison or detained on such sen- 45 act repealed Act 136, P.A. 1903 and had a much larger bearing on parole. The act provided the following: Section 1. That when any persons shall hereafter be convicted of crime committed after this act takes effect, the punishment for which prescribed by law, may be imprisonment in the State Prison at Jackson, the Michigan Reforma- tory at Ionia, the State House of Correction and Branch House of Correction, the court im- posing sentence, shall not fix a definite term of imprisonment, but shall fix a minimum term of imprisonment which shall not be less than six months in any case. The maximum penalty provided by law shall be the maximum sentence in all cases except as herein provided and shall be stated by the judge in passing sentence. The judge shall at the time of pronouncing such sen- tence recommend and state therein what, in his judgment, would be a proper maximum penalty pro- vided by law. He shall before or at the time of passing such sentence ascertain the examination of such convict an oath, or otherwise and in ad— dition to such oath, by such other evidence as can be obtained tending to indicate briefly the causes of the criminal character or conduct of such convict, which facts, and such other facts as shall appear to be pertinent in the case, he shall cause to be entered upon the minutes of the court.38 The effects of this act on parole was as follows: Section 5. Authority to grant parole under the provisions of this act is hereby conferred exclusively upon the Governor in all cases of murder, actual forcible rape, for offenses by public officers in violations of their duties as such officers, and to all persons convicted 38Michigan, Act 184, P.A. 1905, Section 1. 46 and serving sentence for conspiracy to defraud public municipalities, or the bribing or at- tempt to bribe of public officers. In all other cases such authority is hereby conferred upon the Advisory Board in the Matter of Par-' dons. The Governor and the Advisory Board in the Matter of Pardons acting jointly, shall have authority to adopt such rules as may, by then, be deemed wise or necessary to properly carry out the provisions of this act, and to amend such rules at pleasure . . . Section 6. Applications shall be made to the Governor or to the Advisory Board in the Matter of Pardons upon uniform blanks prescribed by the Governor and the Advisory Board in the Matter of Pardons acting jointly and supplied by the secretary of the Advisory Board in the Matter of Pardons to the wardens or superinten- dents of the penal institutions named in section one of this act.- It shall be the duty of the warden or superintendent, when requested by a prisoner, whose minimum term of imprisonment has expired and is eligible to a parole to fur- nish such prisoner with a blank application for parole. The application shall be filled out and delivered to the warden or superintendent who shall immediately forward the same to the Governor or to the Advisory Board in the Matter of Pardons, with his recommendation endorsed thereon. Upon receipt of such application and recommendation, the Governor or the Advisory Board in the Matter of Pardons shall make such investigation in the matter as they may deem advisable and necessary and may, in their dis- cretion, grant such application and issue a pa- role or permit to such an applicant to go at large without the enclosure of the prison. The convict so paroled, while at large, by vir- tue of such parole, shall be deemed to be still serving the sentence imposed upon, him and shall 47 be entitled to good time the same as if confined in prison.39 After the passage of the above act in 1905 much debate and controversy arose over sections one and eight of that act. In fact, questions concerning the constitu- tionality of the act were raised. However, these ques- tions eventually led to the development of Act 299, P.A. which amended Act 184, P.A. 1905. The amended sections are as follow: Section 1. Section eight of act number one hundred eighty four of the Public Acts of nine- teen hundred five, entitled "An act to provide for the indeterminate sentence as a punishment for crime, upon the conviction thereof, and for the detention and release of persons in prison or detained on such sentence, and for the ex- pense attending the same," approved June seven, nineteen hundred five, is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 8. Every such convict, while on pa- role shall remain in the legal custody and under' the control of the warden or superintendent of the prison from which he is paroled and shall be subject at any time to be taken back within the enclosure of said prison for any reason that may be satisfactory to the warden or superinten- dent, and full power to retake and return any such paroled convict to the prison from which he was allowed to go at large is hereby expressly conferred upon the warden or superintendent of such prison, whose written order shall be a suf- ficient warrant authorizing all officers named 39Michigan, Act 184, P.A. 1905, Section 5 and 6. therein to return such paroled convict to cus- tody in the prison from which he was permitted to go at large. When the warden or superinten- dent shall return to prison any paroled convict, he shall at once report the fact, and his rea- sons therefore, to the advisory board in the matter of pardons, which board at its next meet- ing at the prison where such convict is confined shall him to appear before said board to show cause, if any, why the original sentence of the warden or superintendent shall stand approved unless reversed by a majority vote of said board after such meeting.40 One further act was passed in 1917 which also amended the indeterminate sentence law of 1905 and led to the development of section 1, 5, and 6 of which have a strong influence on parole in Michigan. Section 5 and 6 are as follow: Section 5. Authority to grant parole under the provisions of this act is hereby conferred exclusively upon the Governor in all cases of murder, actual forcible rape, for offenses by publicers in violation of their duties as such officers, and to all persons convicted and serv- ing sentence for conspiracy to defraud public municipalities, or the bribing or attempt to bribe public officers. In all other cases such authority is hereby conferred upon the Advisory Board in the Matter of Pardons acting jointly, shall have authority to adopt such rules as may, by them, be deemed wise or necessary to properly carry out the provisions of this act, and to amend such rules at pleasure . . . 4OMichigan, Act 299, P.A. 1913, Sections 1 & 8. 48 49 Section 6. Application shall be made to the Governor or to the Advisory Board in the Matter of Pardons upon uniform blanks prescribed by the Governor and the Advisory Board in the Matter of Pardons acting jointly and supplied by the secretary of the Advisory Board in the Matter of Pardons to the wardens or superinten— dents of the penal institutions named in sec- tion one of this act. It shall be the duty of the warden or superintendents of the penal institutions named in section one of this act. It shall be the duty of the warden or superin- tendent when requested by a prisoner whose min- imum term of imprisonment will expire within thirty days and who is eligible to parole, to furnish such prisoner with a blank application for parole. The application shall be filled out and delivered to the warden or superinten- dent who shall immediately forward the same to the Governor or to the Advisory Board in the Matter of Pardons, with this recommendation on- dorsed thereon. Upon receipt of such applica- tion and recommendation, the Governor or the Advisory Board in the Matter of Pardons shall make such investigation in the matter as they may deem advisable and necessary and may, in their discretion, grant such application and issue a parole or permit to such applicant to go at large without the enclosure of the prison. The convict so paroled, while at large, by vir- tue of such parole, shall be deemed to be still serving the sentence imposed upon him, and shall be entitled to good time the same as if confined in prison.41 The above act draws to a close the early develop- ment of parole in Michigan. 41Michigan, Act 198, P.A. 1917, Sections 5 & 6. 50 SUMMARY In this chapter parole has been traced back to 1895 when parole officially became an established law and func- tion of the Michigan Department of Corrections. It has also been pointed out that parole was first mentioned as early as 1869 in a report submitted to Governor Henry-P. Baldwin of Michigan by a special commission appointed to examine the penal, reformatory, and charitable institu- tions of the State of Michigan. Between the years of 1869 and 1895 a number of laws were passed which had a definite bearing on parole. Of particular importance were Act 200, P.A. 1885, and Act 228, P.A. 1889. Act 200, P.A. 1885 was designed for two basic reasons: 1) to break parole or pardons away from political play, and 2) a request by the governor for outside help in the handling of released convicts. Act 228, P.A. 1889 was designed to provide for an indetermin- ate sentence act which would provide for the management and release of criminals under the indeterminate sentence plan. 51 The official beginning of parole was brought about by the enactment of Act 218, P.A. 1895 which provided for the granting of parole by the Governor. This act can best be referred to as the birth of an official parole program in Michigan. After the enactment of Act 218, P.A. 1895 very little legislative action occurred concerning the development of parole in Michigan. The following years were marked by frequent commissions and evaluations of the parole act. However, legislative action did occur in the development of an indeterminate sentence law. The first indetermin- ate sentence act of 1889 was found to be unconsitutional and it was replaced by Act 136, P.A. 1903 which made clear that a criminal would have to serve out his minimum term before being considered for release. The criticism around the establishment of a constitutional indeterminate sen— tence law continued until 1917 when Act 198, P.A. 1917 was established and which provided for all the legal con- ditions of the law. Chapter 4 PAROLE IN MICHIGAN: 1921 to 1947 The year 1921 marked the first significant change in the structure of the Advisory Board to the Governor. In 1893 the state adopted the use of an Advisory Board in the matter oprardons. This board continued until May 15, 1921--a period of twenty-eight years. On this date the Advisory Board was replaced by a Commissioner of Pardons and Paroles in accordance with Act 403, P.A. 1921. The first commissioner was Mr. Fred E. Jannette of Detroit. This act prescribed the manner of applying for pardons and paroles of prisoners; the creation of the office of the Commissioner of Pardons and Paroles, and the prescrip- tion of his powers and duties. The act stated the follow- ing: Section 1. There is hereby created in the Executive Department the office of Commissioner of Pardons and Paroles, with such powers and duties as are hereinafter prescribed. Such Com- missioner shall be appointed by the Governor and shall be deemed to be the successor to,~and shall perform the duties . . . and exercise all of the powers required of and conferred by~law 53 upon the Advisory Board in the Matter of Pardons and of the secretary thereof. Section 3. Hereafter, all applications for Executive Clemency in the nature of pardon, re- prieve, or parole, in behalf of persons con- victed of crimes and misdemeanors and undergoing sentences of imprisonment therefor, shall be filed with the Commissioner of Pardons and Pa- roles . . . . The Governor may make such rules and regulations, not inconsistent with the statutes, as in his judgment are necessary to carry out the provisions of any law, relating to pardons and paroles, and all such rules and regulations when made and published shall have the force and effect of law. Section 4. Hereafter, all paroles under the indeterminate sentence law, so called, shall be made and terminated by order of the Governor,- only, but this provision shall not be construed as affecting or changing the status of any exist- ing parole, nor as abrogating or lessening the power of the warden of any of the persons to cause the arrest and return to prison of any prisoner paroled by virtue of the provisions of the indeterminate sentence law for violation of his parole as provided in act number one hundred eighty-four, Public Acts of nineteen hundred five, as amended: Provided, that each parole order, hereafter issued by the Governor, shall distinctly state whether or not the prisoner so paroled shall be subject to be arrested and re- turned to the prison upon the warrant of the warden, for violation of the conditions of his parole without the approval of the Governor as to the issuance of such warrant. Section 6. Paroles under the indeterminate sentence law, where the prisoner is licensed to be conditionally at large but remains under the custody of the warden or superintendent of the prison or house of correction during such parole, may be signed at the direction of the Governor by the Commissioner of Pardons.and Paroles, and 54 need not be authenticated by the Secretary of State. All such Executive orders, whether per- taining to pardons, commutations, reprieves or paroles, shall be obeyed by each officer to whom directed; and return of execution thereof shall be promptly made to the Governor, and filed with the Commissioner.42 The entire act is given in Appendix B. In order to obtain a clear picture of the proced- ures used by the parole commissioner an excerpt is taken from a report submitted by Arthur Wood, Commissioner of Parole, on Jan. 7, 1928. The report was as follows: The work was sub-divided and scheduled in order to assign time to the major activities. The first three days of each week have been given over to public interviews in the Lansing office, preparing and assigning special investigations, reviewing cases and preparing briefs, dictating the volume of correspondence and general super- vision. The latter three days have been given over to conducting interviews and hearings of prospective applicants for parole consideration in one of the four penal institutions. In addi- tion to the above, one day each month has been devoted to public interviews in the Department's Detroit office, for the convenience of the many prisoners from Wayne County who for various rea- sons were unable to journey to Lansing. In all public interviews the interested par- ties were given time and opportunity to have the case reviewed and present facts and evidence in support of the respective appeals for parole or Executive Clemency. In the case of the inmate, & 42Michigan, Act 403, P.A. 1921, Sections 1, 3, 4, 55 the hearings ranged from ten minutes to five hours, depending upon circumstances attending the case to be passed upon assigned for inves- tigation. The hearings at both Jackson and Ionia average upward of 170 monthly, which necessitates daily sessions running from twelve to fourteen hours.43 Within a few years the new one-man system began to receive much criticism from individuals involved in various political circles. One of the chief opponents to the new one-man system was incumbent Governor Fred Green. The following is a plea from Governor Green to return to the three-man board: The new law, providing for one parole com- missioner is susceptible to much abuse and it is more expensive than the old three man board. I recommend return to that board. The parole and pardoning power should be applied in the open, after careful investiga- tion to undo the inevitable injustice of our police and court systems. Then the man without money or influential friends, but who deserves freedom would get it. No longer should it be generally understood that the first requisite for paroles or pardons is the employing of lawyers with influence in proper quarters.44 43Arthur D. Wood, "Special Report of the Commis— sioner of Pardons and Paroles." (Lansing, Michigan. Michigan Department of Corrections, January 7, 1928.) 4Messages of the Governors of the State of Michi- gan: Governor Fred Green's address to the Senate, 1927, Vol. 4 (L ansing: Michigan Historical Society, 1927), pp. 863-864. 56 It will later be established that the one-man system of parole was abolished and replaced by a board of commis- sioners. In 1931 while the criticism of the one-man system of parole commissioner continued, the legislature passed an act which amended the indeterminate sentence act of 1905. This act provided for the indeterminate sentence as a punishment for crime, upon a conviction and for the detention and release of persons in prisons or detained on such sentence, and for the expense of such action. The act is as follows: Section 1. Act number one hundred eighty- four of the public acts of nineteen hundred five, entitled "An act to provide for the inde- terminate sentence as a punishment for crime, upon the conviction thereof, and for the deten— tion and release of persons in prison or detained on such sentence, and for the expense attending the same," as last amended, being sections seven- teen thousand, five hundred twenty-one to seven- teen thousand, five hundred thirty-six, inclusive of the compiled laws of nineteen hundred twenty- nine, is hereby amended by adding thereto two new sections to stand as sections five and ten thereof, said added sections to read as follows: Parole prior to expiration of minimum term. Sec. 5-a. Prisoners under the provisions of this act shall be eligible for parole prior to the expiration of their minimum terms of impri- sonment whenever the sentencing judge or his 57 successor in office shall give his written appro- val of the parole of such prisoner prior to the expiration of such minimum terms of imprisonment. Annulment of remaining section of first sen- tence. Sec. lO-a. The power to annul the re- maining portion of a first sentence referred to in the next preceding section of this act is hereby vested in the commissioner of pardons and paroles.45 Another significant change in pardons or paroles which occurred in the 1920's was that all inmates of Michigan were confined under the indeterminate sentence term except the "lifer." Prior to 1921 life termers could be heard for parole at the expiration of slightly more than sixteen years; however, in 1921 they were forced to continue servitude unless a pardon or commutation was granted them by the governor. Needless to say the parole system was still un— stable and very confused due to the constant passage of laws and divided administrative structure. In order to remedy the existing conditions a committee was appointed at the-close of 1936 to develop a program of administrative 45Michigan, Act 115, P.A. 1931, Sections 1, 5a, & 10a. 6 . . Michigan Department of Corrections, Manual for Michigan Parole Agents (Lansing: The Department, 1936), p. 33. 58 and legislative action with respect to probation, prison, pardon, and parole administration. As a result of the committee's action two bills were introduced to the Legis- lature in 1937. The bills were adopted and became known as Act 255, P.A. 1937. Thus, the act officially created the Michigan Department of Corrections. It was hoped that this act would be a step forward in establishing a sound system of rehabilitation for criminals in Michigan. Prior to this act Michigan suffered from the organiza- tional structure of the department. Prior to 1937 the consolidated departments were administered by four dif— ferent agencies and persons: the State Welfare Depart- ment, the Prison Commission, the Commissioner of Pardons and Paroles, and the Governor. Due to this lack of uni- formity the Parole Commissioners were often supplied with inadequate information when faced with the task of deter- mining the status of.a convict up for parole. Hopefully, the new system would bring an end to this confusion. Act 255, P.A. 1937 provided the following: There is hereby created a state department of corrections, hereinafter called the depart- ment, which shall possess the powers and perform 59 the duties granted and conferred. Such depart- ment shall consist of and be administered by a commission of five members appointed by the governor, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, to be known as the Michigan Cor- rections Commission, hereinafter called the commission, not more than three of whom shall be members of the same political party, each of whom shall be members of the same party and qualify by taking the constitutional oath of office, and filing the same in the office of the secretary of state, and of such other officers and assistants as may be appointed or' employed in such department, including a direc- tor as its executive head. No person holding any position either state or federal, nor any person drawing any salary from any municipal unit of the state, shall be eligible for appointment to the commission, without having first resigned from such position. The term of office of each member of the commission shall be sixyears.47 Refer to Appendix A: Chart I and I-A for the functional and administrative charts of the Department of Corrections. Although the act was responsible for the estab- lishment of a Bureau of Probation, Bureau of Pardons and Paroles, Parole Board, and Bureau of Prisons, primary at- tention will be focused upon the Bureau of Pardons and Paroles and the Parole Board. In essence the Act provided that the department have exclusive jurisdiction over (among other things) 47Michigan, Act 255, P.A. 1937, Section 1, Chap. 1. 60 paroles, and that an appointed assistant director would be in charge of pardons and paroles and would exercise the powers and duties prescribed by the act. As stated in the Act, the assistant director was to be appointed by the-director-of Corrections. The Act designated the following law: There is hereby established within the de- partment a bureau of pardons and paroles, under the direction and supervision of the assistant director in charge of pardons and paroles. He shall direct and supervise the work of the bu- reau and shall formulate methods of investiga-- tion and supervision and develop various pro- cesses in the technique of the case work of the parole staff, including interviewing, consulta- tion of records, analysis of information, diag- nosis, plan of treatment, correlation of effort by individuals and agencies, and methods of in- fluencing human behavior. He shall be respon- sible for all investigations of persons elig- ible for release~from state penal institutions, and for the general supervision of persons so released.48 The complete act, including the continuation of Section 1 can be found in Appendix B. The Act also brought about the establishment of a parole board consisting of three members. The assis— tant director in charge of the Bureau of Pardons and 48Michigan, Act 255, P.A. 1937, Section 1 of Chapter I. Paroles 61 would serve as chairman of the Parole Board and two other members would be appointed by the commission.49 (Charts II and II-A of Appendix A designate the functional and administrative organization of the Parole Board and the Bureau of Pardons and Paroles.) The Act also set up mandatory provisions and rules and regulations regarding the granting of paroles. The provisions are: (l) (2) (3) That no prisoner shall be given his liberty on parole until the board has reasonable assurance after consideration of all the facts and circumstances, including the prisoner's mental and social attitude, that he will not become a menace to society or. to the public safety: That no parole shall be so granted to any prisoner until he has served the minimum term imposed by the court less such allow- ances for good time or special good time as he may be entitled to by statutes: That no prisoner shall be released on parole until the parole board shall have satisfac- tory evidence that arrangements have been made for such honorable and useful employ- ment as he is capable of performing, or for his care if he is ill or incapacitated.50 Chapter. Chapter 49Michigan, Agt255, P.A. 1937, Section 2 of III. ' soMichigan, Act 255, P.A. 1937, Section 3 of III. 62 Also included in the act was a stipulation concern- ing the prisoner and the indeterminate sentence law. The rule provided that prisoners sentenced to an indeterminate sentence who had served the minimum less allowances for good time and special good time were subject to the juris- diction of the parole board. The time of the convict's re- lease was at the discretion of the parole board. The de- cision of the parole board was closed to review if it was in compliance with the law.51 Release on parole was granted solely on the initia- tive of the board, which was required to consider all per- tinent information regarding a prisoner at least one month prior to the expiration of the minimum sentence less good time. The board was required to have the prisoner brought before it and to examine him. The board was to consider. the following information: change of attitude, industrial record, institutional adjustment, the warden's appraisal of the inmate in question, and the results of the physical, 51Michigan, Act 255, P.A. 1937, Section 4 of Chapter III. 63. mental, and psychiatric examinations. All decisions of the board were made by majority vote.52 Paroles were issued upon order of the board, signed by the chairman and notice was given to the sher- iff or local police of the county in which the prisoner was convicted, or the county to which the parolee would be released. The order contained the conditions of pa- role which were established by the parole board.53 The Act also allowed for the provision of cloth? ing, transportation, and a loan of twenty dollars which was to be repaid to the prison. Upon release the parolee remained in the legal custody of the commission, and the assistant director of the bureau was authorized to issue a warrant for the return of any parolee who violated his parole conditions. Parole was considered to be a permit given to a prisoner to go without the enclosure of the prison while serving the end of his sentence as desig- nated by the court. It was also stated that probation, SZMichigan, Apt 255, P.A. 1931, Section 5 of Chapter III. 3 ' , S Michigan, Act 255, P.A. 1937, Section 6 of Chapter III. 64 parole, and peace officers could arrest any paroled offender- without warrant. However, these violators were entitled to a hearing before the parole board. The parolee had the right to be represented by counsel and to call and question witnesses in his behalf.54 Upon completion of the parole period the board would issue a certificate of discharge along with a final order to the successful parolee. The-act also stated that the period of parole could not be less than four years in cases involving murder, actual forcible rape, armed rob- bery, kidnapping, extortion, or breaking and entering of an occupied dwelling in the night time.55 The above points represent the highlights of the 1937 Corrections Law passed in Michigan. It is evident that this law~included a number of parole guidelines which were not visible in Michigan prior to 1937. It must be remembered that this is the first actual attempt of parole officials to bring about an effective system of parole in 54Michigan,.Act 255, P.A. 1937, Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, of Chapter III. 55Michigan, Act 255, P.A. 1937, Sections 11, 12, of Chapter III. 65 Michigan. (Because of the tremendous impact which the above act had on the structure of parole in Michigan, the complete act designated as Act 255, P.A. 1937 is given in Appendix B.) At this point it is interesting to compare the 1937 Corrections Law of Michigan with the model parole act sponsored by the New York parole system which is known as the Lewisohn Committee on Parole. The Lewisohn Commit- tee established six factors which should be included in a state's parole system if the system was to be considered effective. The six factors were: 1) state control of parole, 2) parole independent of, and cooperative with prison administration, 3) broad powers of administration and high prestige of administrative personnel, 4) prison preparation for parolees, 5) deliberative independent consideration by an irreproachable Parole Board, and 6) adequate field and administrative-staff. The Michigan parole system included four of the above six items and . . . . 56 realized in large measure items four and Six. In effect, 56Michigan Department of Corrections, "First Bien- nial Report of Michigan's Correctional Systemt'(Lansing: The Department, 1937-1938), p. 74. 66 the parole system was strong in structure and modern in ideas and programs. It was a tribute to the commission of 1936 which developed specific plans which led to the charter of Act 255, P.A. 1937, and thus a sound and effec- tive parole system. After the passage of the Corrections Law in 1937, parole supervision was also strengthened. The act brought about Legislative appropriations of additional funds for the purpose of hiring a staff of full-time, trained pa- role officers and supervisors. Prior to Act 255 parole officers were politically appointed and placed on a fee system. On September 6, 1939 Ralph E. Benson, Deputy in Charge of Supervision, stated the following at the Seventh Annual Conference of the Michigan Probation Association: It was but a short time ago that we had po- litically appointed parole officer's in our var- ious counties. Some such political appointees were splendid men and-well qualified, but, as you must realize, we at the same time received some agents who really did not fit into a planned parole program at all . . . Michigan was severely criticized for the fee system pre- viously in vogue but with the abolishment of the fee system parole officers in our counties and the establishing of the full time accredited parole worker, Michigan then took its place 67 among the states who are recognized as having a competent parole organization.57 The system which replaced the politically appointed officers was based on the establishment of a geographical district parole plan with a supervisor in charge of each area with trained parole officers assigned as members of his staff. This system enabled the parole officers to maintain close contact with the courts as well as law en- forcement agencies, prosecuting attorneys, and social agencies. In 1941, the legislature adopted a bill which be- came known as the "Lifer Law" (Act 173, P.A. 1941). Briefly, the act granted the Parole Board jurisdiction to parole any lifer except one serving a term for first degree murder, after the service of ten years, providing the sentencing judge, if still living, did not object to the granting of the parole. The law also included men serving indeterminate sentences whose minimum term was 7Report entitled Parole Supervision . . . given at the Seventh Annual Conference of the Michigan Proba- tion Association (Property of the Michigan Department of- Corrections), report of Deputy in Charge of Supervision, September 6, 1939, p. 3. 68 so long that they would normally be required to serve in excess of ten years before becoming eligible for parole consideration. In essence, the above law provided that every man and woman serving in the prisons of the state, with the exception of first degree murder cases, was eligible for parole after the service of ten years.58 (The entire act may be found in Appendix B.) Under the provisions of the above "Lifer Law" 372 paroles were granted in the 27 years from 1942, when the law became effective, through 1968. Only 23 of the 372 parolees were returned as parole violators. The per- centage indicates that the "Lifer Law" has proven itself a worthwhile effort as instituted by the Michigan Depart- ment of Corrections. The next few years in the history of parole in Michigan were overshadowed by World War II. Generally, the war had little effect on the established policies of the Department. When the Bureau or Corrections Commission was established in 1937 three major objectives were out- lined: the creation of greater public confidence in Parole 58Michigan, Act 173, P.A. 1941. 69 Board activities, complete separation from influence or pressure, the establishment of a career service, and the selection of parolees on the basis of their merit and security for thecommunity.59 These objectives were met and continued to be the major goals of the department. One major effect of the war on parole was that parole officers were made responsible for cooperating with local draft boards and selective service officials. During the height of the war 1600 parolees were inducted into the Armed Forces from Michigan. Except for about one dozen, they were all released from the armed services with Honorable Discharges. The success rate indicates a high prediction rate on the part of parole officers who were responsible for estimating the stability of the parolees. In 1947 another phase of parole development occurred in Michigan. Act No. 255 of the Public Acts of 1937 was repealed and replaced by Act No. 4 of Public Acts 1947—Second Extra Session. One of the chief purposes behind the adoption of Act 4 was that parole would be 9Michigan Department of Corrections, "Corrections in War Time" (Lansing: The Department, 1941—1942), p. 89. 70 returned to the Governor, rather than being placed in the hands of the Parole Board in Act 255, P.A. 1937. Under the new act of 1947 the Department of Correc- 'tions was administered by a commissioner appointed by the Governor, with the consent of the senate, and would serve at the pleasure of the Governor. The commissioner served as the chief administrative officer of the department, which includes parole. The commissioner also had the power to appoint a director of the Division of Pardons, Paroles, and Probation.60 (Refer to Chart III for the Administrative Organization of the Department of Correc— tions--l947.) The Commissioner of Corrections basically assumed the same powers and tasks as did the Commission of Correc- tions under the Act of 1937. Some of the duties of the Commissioner were: 1) policy determination, 2) promul- gation of rules and regulations, 3) development of work- ing procedures and their implementation, 4) administra- tive control and supervision, 5) the fostering of crime prevention and research in criminology. and 6) the 60Michigan, Act 4, P.A. 1947, Section 1 of Chap. I. 71 establishment of a liaison with the Governor and Legisla- ture. The Commissioner of Corrections most important function concerning parole was to: Promulgate rules and regulations for the manner in which application for pardon, reprieve or commutation shall be made to the governor: for procedure in handling such applications by the department, and for recommendation thereon to the governor: for the manner in which pa- roles shall be considered; and to prescribe the duties of the parole board in respect thereto; for hearing on paroles and for notice thereof, in accordance with the provisions of this act; for the entering of appropriate orders granting or denying paroles; and for the supervision and control of paroled prisoners.61 (Chart 3-A shows the specific functional organization of the Michigan Department of Corrections under P.A. 1947.) Directly in charge of the Division of Pardons, Paroles, and Probation is the Director of the Division who replaced the assistant director under.the Public Acts of 1937. The director also assumed the same responsibil- ities as did the assistant director of the Bureau of Par- dons and Paroles. In fact, the wording of the respective sections of both acts relating to the function of the di- vision (bureau) heads is practically identical. (See 61Michigan, Act 4, P.A. 1947, Section 5c, of Chapter I. 72 Charts 3 and 3-A for the administrative and functional organization of the Division of Pardons, Paroles, and Probation. Also Section 23 of Act 4, P.A. 1947 can be reviewed in Appendix B.) Under the new Act of 1947 the Parole Board became a three-man, full time board within the Division of Par- dons, Paroles, and Probation. The-members of the board were appointed by the Commissioner of Corrections. The functions of the Parole Board remained basically the same» as in 1937. The functions of the board were: 1) to hold parole hearings, 2) grant parole releases, 3) hold pan role revocation hearings, 4) process applications for reprieve, 5) conduct public hearings for reprieve, com- mutation or pardon, and 6) grant certificates of discharge from parole or sentence. However, one major exception did occur in the function of the Parole Board. This exception is found in Section 32 of Act 4, P.A. 1947. It reads as follows: Provided further, that any convict who now is, or hereafter may be imprisoned in any one of the prisons or reformatories of this state under sentence for life or for any term of years, other than those so sentenced for life for murder in the first degree, and who shall have served 73 ten years of such sentence, shall be subject to the authority and jurisdiction of the parole board and may be released on parole in the dis- cretion of the parole board: Provided however, that no parole shall be granted any convict so sentenced and so imprisoned except after public hearing the manner hereinafter prescribed for- pardons and commutations, except that one mem- ber of the parole board may conduct such public hearing; Provided further, that notice of such public hearing shall be given to the sentencing judge, if alive, and said parole shall not be granted in case said sentencing judge shall file written objections to the granting thereof, which written objections shall be made part of the hearing. Parole so granted any convict so sentenced and so imprisoned shall be for a period of not less than four years and subject to the usual rules appertaining to paroles is- sued by the parole board. The time of his re- lease on parole shall be discretionary with the parole board. The action of the parole board in releasing prisoners shall not be reviewable if in compliance with law.62 (Refer to Chart IV in-Appendix A for a diagram of the process that Lifers and Long Termers must go through in order.to be granted parole according to Chapter II, Sec- tion 32, P.A. 1947.) According to Act 4 of P.A. 1947 the inmate would be placed on a parole eligibility list sixty days before he was eligible for consideration of release. At this 62Michigan, Act 4L P.A. 1947, Section 32, of Chapter II. 74 time a classification committee would examine the inmate's records covering the areas of institutional experience, academic-and vocational training, industrial record, find- ings of physical, mental, and psychiatric examinations and prognosis. On the basis of the institutional record the warden would also make recommendations concerning pa- role and special good time. After all the above data had been considered a parole board hearing would be scheduled thirty days prior to the eligibility of re- leases. At this time, a decision would be made by the parole board as to the release of the inmate. (Refer to V in Appendix A for a diagram of the parole procedures under Act 4, P.A. 1947.) The Parole Board was also placed in charge of pardons and commutations. Section 41 of Act 4, P.A. 1947 provided the following: All applications for pardons, reprieves and commutations shall be filed with the parole board upon-forms provided therefor by the parole board, and shall contain such information, records and-documents as the parole board may by rule require.63 63Michigan, Act 4, P.A. 1947, Section 41, of Chapter II. 75 (Chart VI of Appendix A offers diagrams of the procedures followed in granting a pardon or commutation.) Certain criticisms arose around the adoption of Act 4, P.A. 1947. One chief criticism was that the new act placed a considerable amount of power in the hands of the Commissioner of Corrections. It appeared as though the powers of both the parole director and the parole board were limited by the superior policy-making power of the Commission. Another criticism was that a contradiction appeared in the formulation of Act 4. Under. Section 38, the parole board could adopt rules and regu- lations regarding violation hearings. However under Sec- tion 5 it was stated that only the commissioner was allowed to promulgate such rules and regulations. The third chief criticism was that the Parole Board was placed in an organizational structure which prevented it from en- joying the flexibility of movement and decision that such a board should enjoy. This criticism is that the commis- sioner possessed too much authority and power. A number of criticisms were directed toward the structure of the Michigan Department of Corrections. However, the above 76 three were considered to carry more value than the other criticisms. Now that the comparison of the 1937 and 1947 Cor- rection Laws have been reviewed, it is appropriate to compare the main differences between the two laws. Administrative Structure: Under the 1937 law the Administration of the Department was vested.in the Correc- tions Commission, consisting of five members serving on a part-time basis and appointed by the Governor for stag- gered terms of six years: the Commission, then appointed a director with civil service status to serve as executive officer of the Department. Under the 1947 law the Commission was eliminated and the administration of the Department was vested in a full time commissioner. The Commissioner did not have civil service status, was appointed by the Governor, was, responsible directly to the Governor, and held office at the Governor's pleasure. Both laws provided that the appointment of both. the Commission and the Commissioner was to be approved by the Senate. Also, under the 1947 law the Governor was 77 granted the-right to appoint an advisory board of five members to exercise such advisory powers and duties as were found necessary. Bureau and Divisions: The 1937 law provided that the Department of Corrections consist of three bureaus: Bureau of Prisons, Bureau of Probation, and Bureau of Pardons and Paroles. Each department was to be headed by an Assistant Director with civil service status, appointed by the Director. The Director was also respon- sible for the supervision of the Division of Statistics and the Office of Administrative Services. Under the 1947 law the Department of Corrections consisted of two major divisions: The Division of Prisons and Industries, and the Division of Pardons, Paroles and Probation. Each division was provided by law with a- director, without civil service status, appointed by the Commissioner. The-Commissioner was also directly respon- sible for the Unit of Criminal Statistics and the Office of Administrative Services. Parole Board: Both laws provided that the Parole Board and its personnel engaged in parole supervision be 78 placed under the administrative structure of the Department of Corrections. Under the 1937 law, the Parole Board con- sisted of three members: The Assistant Director in charge of the Bureau of Pardons and Paroles, who served as "ex officio" as chairman of the Board, and two full-time mem- bers appointed by the Corrections Commissioner, protected under Civil Service and with no other duties than service on the Parole Board. Parole supervision was a responsi- bility of the Bureau of Pardons and Paroles and was coor- dinated with the Board's operations by the Assistant Di- rector's service in a dual capacity as Board Chairman and Bureau head. Under the 1947 law and the amendment of 1948 the Parole Board consisted of four members protected under Civil Service and were appointed by the Commissioner of Corrections.' Parole supervision was the chief responsi- bility of the Division of Pardons, Paroles, and Probation and the Parole Board had no administrative control over that function. The Parole Board was also administratively controlled by the Commissioner. 79 Civil Service Status: Under the 1937 law the Director, Assistant Directors and members of the Parole Board had Civil Service status. Under the 1947 law the Parole Board members had civil service status but the Commissioner and Directors in charge of the divisions did not have civil service status. Subordinate Personnel: Under both laws, subord- inate personnel of the Department and its institutions and services had Civil Service status. Under the 1937 law, the Director's appointments of bureau heads, wardens,- psychiatrists, physicians and chaplains were subject to the approval of the Corrections Commission. Under the 1947 law the Commissioner had full power of appointment of division heads, wardens, psychiatrists, physicians and chaplains and approval of the appointment of all other personnel. Probation: Under the 1937 law there existed a Bureau of Probation under.the supervision of an Assistant Director. Under the 1947 law the role of probation was included in and exercised by the Division of Pardons, Paroles and Probation. (Chart 7 in Appendix A illustrates 80 the primary differences between the 1937 and 1947 Correc- tions Act.) The above states the primary differences be- tween the 1937 and 1947 Corrections Laws. If one were to evaluate the structure and overall effectiveness of each system he would be undertaking a tremendous task. For the crux of the matter is not what the Corrections law provides,-but who administers it. An effective system must consist of qualified personnel to operate the system. Both the 1937 and the 1947 Corrections Law en- countered enormous problems. The 1937 system was estab- lished with the primary intention of reducing political interference by the establishment of a Corrections Com- mission which had some control over the power of the Governor. However, by looking back in history in 1939 when the so-called "Civil Service Ripper Act" was passed which allowed the opening of doors to widespread manipu- lation of personnel on political grounds. In effect, the (purpose behind the organizational structure of the Depart- Inent of Corrections was defeated. It should also be men- tioned that under the 1937 law, Jackson Prison and the .0. n1 2. - 81 Michigan Department of Corrections experienced one of the worst scandals in American penal history. This scandal eventually led to the dismissal of the warden and six toperanking officials. The purpose behind the organizational structure of the 1947 law was to establish a communications system. between the Governor and the Department and to destroy the barrier between such a communications system that was-estab1ished in the 1937 Corrections Act. The Legis- lature put forth faith in both the Governor and the De- partment in the passage of the 1947 law and hoped that such a system would not become crippled by political pressure but would rather be strengthened by administra- tive control and direction. However, the 1947 system also experienced trouble by the violent prison riot at Jackson Prison. SUMMARY This chapter reviewed the growth of parole in Michigan from 1921 to 1947. It was pointed out that the year 1921 marked the first significant change in the 82 structure of the Advisory Board to the Governor which was established in 1893. The change that occurred was the development of the position of Commissioner of Pardons and Paroles which replaced the Advisory Board to the Gov- ernor. It was noted that Mr. Fred E. Janette of Detroit was the first Corrections Commissioner. The above change was made law by Act 403, P.A. 1921. Another highlight that occurred in the 1920's was the establishment of the "Lifer Law." Prior to 1921 life termers could be heard for parole at the expiration of slightly more than sixteen years: however, in 1921 they were forced to continue servitude unless a pardon or com- mutation was granted them by the governor. Due to the controversy surrounding the establish- ment of the position of Commissioner of Corrections a committee was appointed to study the existing structure of parole in Michigan. As a result of the commission's report the Legislature passed Act 255, P.A. 1937 which created the Michigan Department of Corrections. This act brought about the first structural Department of Correc- tions known to Michigan and eventually led to the current 83 status of parole in Michigan today. The Public Act of 1937 basically put the decision-making process in the hands of a parole board which had the exclusive power to grant paroles and pardons to criminals. (Both the administrative and functional diagrams along with the Corrections Law can be found in Appendices A and B of the-thesis.) In 1941 the Legislature amended the "Lifer Law" (Act 173, P.A. 1941) which granted the Parole Board the jurisdiction to parole any lifer except the ones serving a life sentence for first degree murder, after the service of ten years in prison providing the sentencing judge did not object to the granting of the parole. Another major phase of parole growth occurred in 1947 when the Department of Corrections was again admin- istered by a commissioner appointed by the governor. The primary purpose behind Act 4, P.A. 1947 was to again place parole back into the hands of the governor instead of the Parole Board. The Commissioner of Corrections basically assumed the same duties of the Commission of Corrections in 1937. (Diagrams of the provisions of Act 4, P.A. 1947 may be located in Appendix A.) 84 In summary, this chapter has traced parole in Michigan from 1921 through 1947. During this period parole benefited by the adaptation of both the 1937 and 1947 Cor- rections laws. This period marked Michigan as one of the most progressive states in the field of parole. The fol- lowing chapter shall study parole from 1948 to its present status in Michigan (1970). Chapter 5 DEVELOPMENTS: l948--l970 Parole in Michigan continued to grow during the 1940 ' s and into the late 1960's. As mentioned previously, the significant changes and advancements which were de- veloped in the 1937 and 1947 Corrections Acts influenced the organizational and functional organization of 1948 and onward. In 1953 a major change occurred in the administra- tion. Cif the Department of Corrections. Act 232, P.A. 1953 was. passed by the legislature and provided that the Depart- ment <3f Corrections be headed by a Corrections Commission which would appoint a Director of Corrections. Gus Harri- son was appointed as the first Director of Corrections in 1953. (Charts 8 and 8-A in Appendix A illustrate the jpreserrt chain of command and the functional organization Of the Michigan Department of Corrections.) Section 1 of Act 232, P.A. 1953 states the follow- ing: 86 Section 1. There is hereby created a state department. of Corrections, hereinafter called the department, which shall possess the powers and perform the duties of and be administered by a commission of 6 members appointed by the governor, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, to be known as the Michigan Cor- rections Commission, hereinafter called the‘com- mission, not more than 3 of whom shall be mem- bers of the same political party, each of whom shall qualify by- taking the constitutional oath of office, and filing the same in the office of the secretary of state, and of such other offi- cers and assistants as may be» approved. and ap- pointed or employed in such department including- a director as its executive head. No person holding any position either state or federal, nor any person. drawing any salary from any muni- cipal unit of the state, shall be eligible for appointment to the commission, without having first resigned from such position. The term of office of each member of the commission shall be 6 years: Provided, That of the members of the commission two shall be appointed for two years, two for four years and two for six. years. The governor shall fill any vacancy occurring in the membership of the commission for the unexpired term only, and for cause established on hearing may remove any member thereof. Each member of the conunission shall hold office until his suc- cessor shall be appointed and shall qualify. The members of the commission shall receive as compen- Sation $25 per- diem for each day they shall attend any regular or special meeting. The members of the commission shall be entitled to actual and necessary traveling and other expenses while in the performance of any of. the duties hereby im- POSed. Such department and comission shall have its executive office at Lansing, and it shall be the duty of the department of administration to Provide suitable office accommodations therefor: ing 87 Provided, however, That meetings of the commis- sion may be held at such other suitable place as it may designate.64 Section 3 of Act 232, P.A. 1953 states the follow- concerning the director of corrections: The commission shall appoint a director of corrections who shall be. qualified by training and experience in penology. He shall hold. office at the pleasure of the commission except that he may be removed for cause and only after a public hearing before the conunission. He shall receive such salary as shall be appropriated by the legis- lature, together with actual and necessary travel- ing and other expenses. The director shall be the chief administrative officer of the commis- sion and shall be responsible to the commission for the exercise of the powers and duties pre- scribed and conferred by this act, and for such other powers and duties as may be assigned by the commission, subject at all time to its con- trol. Subject to the provisions of this act, and to the rules and regulations adopted by the commission, the director shall have full power and authority to supervise and control the affairs of the department, and the several bu- reaus thereof, and he shall carry out the orders Of the commission.65 Also, under the new act the department was divided into four major bureaus with an assistant director in charge Of eachrbureau. The four bureaus were: Bureau of Probation, Bureau of Penal Institutions, Bureau of Pardons and Paroles \ 64Michigan,-Act 232, P.A. 1953, Section 1. 65,. . Michigan, Act 232, P.A. 1953, Section 3. 88 and Bureau of Prison Industries. Section 5 of the above Act states the “following: The director, subject to the approval cf the commission, shall appoint an assistant director in charge of probation, an assistant director in charge of pardons and paroles, an. assistant di- rector in charge of penal institutions, an assis- tant director in charge. of prison. industries, and an assistant director in charge of a youth divi- sion. The assistant directors shall exercise and perform the respective powers and duties prescribed and conferred by this act, and such other powers and duties as may be assigned by the director, subject at all times to his con—- trol.66 (For- a complete analysis of Act 232, P.A. 1953 refer to Appendix B.) Very little change occurred in the Department of Corrections during- the period from 1948-1970. In 1965 an amendment was added to the 1953 act which: divided the De- Partment of Corrections into four new bureaus. The four bureaus were: Bureau of Correctional Facilities, Bureau Of Programs, Bureau of Field Services and} the Bureau of Administrative Services. Parole was now administered by the Bureau of Field Service. The above amendment was \ 66Michigan, Act 232, P.A. 1953, Section 5. 89 designated as Act 380, P.A. 1965. The following indicates the major changes of the act: Section 275. There is hereby established a department of corrections. Section 276. The head of the department of corrections is the commissioner of corrections. Section 277. The department of corrections created under the section 1 of Act 232 of the Public Acts of 1953, being section 791.201 of the compiled Laws of 1948, is transferred by a type I transfer to the department of corrections. (As a type I transfer under the Executive Organi- zation Act of 1965, the department of corrections did not acquire or lose any functional responsi- bility.) Section 278. The commission of corrections shall consist of 5 members, not more than three (of whom shall be members of the same political party, appointed by the governor by and with 'the advice and consent of the senate. The term (of office of each member shall be four years, except that of members first appointed two shall loe for one year, one shall be appointed for two :years, one shall be appointed for three years (and.one shall be appointed for four years. A Inember appointed to fill a vacancy occurring (other than by expiration of a term shall be appointed for the unexpired term. The commis- sion shall elect from its members such officers as it deems advisable. A majority of the. com- nmission members shall be required to constitute a quorum. Section 279. The principal executive officer (bf the department is the director of the depart- nuent of corrections. The director shall be ap- FHointed by the commission and serve at its plea- Sure. The organizational structure shall consist <>f fOur bureaus: the Bureau of Correctional 90 Facilities, the Bureau of Programs, the Bureau of Field Services, and the Bureau of Administra- tive Services.67 (For an analysis of the administrative functional organi- zation of the Department of Corrections under Act 380, P.A. 1965 refer to Charts 9 and 9-A.) The above law of 1965 is the current administra- tive and functional organization used by the Michigan Department of Corrections (1970). Although the system may have faults it may be rated as one of the most effi- cient in the United States. Perhaps the best way to sum up this period in the development of parole in Michigan is to state the philos- ophy behind today's administration of parole. The phil- °S°Phy of the Department of Corrections is as follows: Recognizing that practically all imprisoned offenders are by operation of law ultimately re- leased, ‘and that parole, when properly admini- Stered and carefully distinguished from clemency, Protects the public by maintaining control over Offenders after they leave prison, do declare and affirm that for parole fully to achieve its Purpose: 1. The paroling authority should be impar- tial, non-political, professionally competent, and able to give the time necessary for full consideration of each case; \ 67Michigan, Act 380, P.A. 1965, Sections 275-279. 91 2. The sentencing and parole laws should endow the paroling authority with broad discre— tion in determining the time and conditions of release; 3. The paroling authority should have com- plete and reliable information concerning the prisoner, his background, and the situation which will confront him on his release; 4. The parole program of treatment and training should be an integral part of a system of criminal justice. 5. The period of imprisonment should be used to prepare the individual vocationally, physic- ally, mentally, and spiritually for return to so- ciety; 6. The community through its social agencies, public and private, and in cooperation with the parole service should accept the responsibility for improving home and neighborhood conditions in preparation for the prisoners' release; 7. The parole offender should be carefully supervised and promtly reimprisoned or otherwise disciplined if he does not demonstrate capacity and willingness to fulfill the obligations of a law-abiding citizen; 8. The supervision of the paroled offender should be exercised by qualified persons trained (and.experienced in the task of guiding social readjustment; 9. The State should provide adequate finan- <2ia1 support for a parole system, including suf- :ficient personnel selected and retained in office Upon the basis of merit. 10. The public should recognize the necessity <>f giving the parole offender a fair opportunity ‘to earn an honest living and maintain self-respect ‘t0>the end that he may be truly rehabilitated and ‘the public adequately protected. In our treatment of persons in our charge, we Inay come close to satisfying these principles, we 92 feel we will be discharging our responsibility in such a manner as to reflect credit upon the entire parole process.68 S UMMARY Parole in Michigan continued to expand its role :irrjutzo the 1940's and through the present (1970). Of major importance was the passage of the corrections laws of l 9 37 and 1947. However, this chapter dealt with two major develop- men ts which occurred between 1948 and 1970. Act 232, P.A. JL-EE’.£S»3 called for another change in the administrative struc- ture of the Department which provided that the Department C)“3E? (Corrections be headed by a corrections commissioner voabjL-ji—<:h would appoint a Director of Corrections. Gus Har- ri Son was appointed the first director of corrections in l 9 5~ 3. Also, under Act 232, P.A. 1953 the department was cl ‘ - . . . . . 3L“‘9’114ded into four major bureaus With an aSSistant director \ ”1. 68Michigan Department of Corrections, Parole in __£E;£Eilljgflgg (Lansing: The Department, 1968), pp. 17-18. 93 in charge of each bureau. The bureaus were: Bureau of Probation, Bureau of Penal Institutions, Bureau of Pardons and Paroles and Bureau of Prison Industries. The second major development of this period occurred in 1965 with the passage of Act 380, P.A. 1965 which provided for the development of four new bureaus in the Department of Corrections. The new bureaus were: Bureau of Correctional Facilities, Bureau. of Programs, Bureau of Field Services and the Bureau of Administrat- ive Services. Parole was now administered by the Bureau of Field Services. The above act is currently in effect (1970) and ma rks Michigan as one of. the most progressive and effec- ti Ve states in the management of parole. Chapter 6 SUMMARY OF THE' FINDINGS The initial purpose of this thesis was to acquaint the reader with a thorough understanding of the origin and development of parole in Michigan. Because of the lack of a: <:=<:mpiled history of parole data it was necessary to in- vestigate state laws, governor's memoirs, historical docu- men ts, taped recordings, records of the Michigan Depart- men 1:. of Corrections, and personal interviews. Included a 3— so in the thesis is a history of the development of pa- r0 la in the United States, a review of the indeterminate Sen tence and its impact on parole, a presentation of var- ious diagrams to illustrate the changing administrative an a functional organization of the parole system, and a comp lete listing of all the laws which had an influence 0 r). the development of parole. The original idea of parole was first believed to be the result of a number of independent factors such as the conditional pardon, the transportation of criminals, t 113' ticket-of-leave, and the indentured slavery system. 95 In reality it was not the. influence of one of. the above systems which led to parole, but it was~ the total impact of all the various ideas and experiments which led to parole as we know it today. The transportation of slaves to the American Colonies started early in the 17th century primarily to re lieve England of the acute economic conditions which p lagued that country. England was suffering from high taxes, widespread unemployment, and the overcrowded English labor market. The method of selection of the- cr iminals to be tran3ported was quite similar to the Pardoning process used by the governor in their selec- ti (311 of criminals for pardons. The transportation of 3 lavas to the American colonies ended as a result of the Re volutionary War. England did not repeal her transportation law and thus arranged an agreement. with Australia to transport. criminals to their country. The primary purpose of the ab Qve move was to relieve the overcrowding of England's P1?:Lscms because of America's refusal to continue to ac- c apt. the transported criminals. However, one major 96 difference occurred in the transportation of slaves to Australia and that was that England was held responsible for all expenses incurred for the cost of transportation. Under this process criminals did not become indentured servants but remained prisoners under the control of the government. In 1790 a special act was passed which led to the. adoption of a ticket-of-leave system which was merely a de G laration signed by the governor granting a dispensation to the convict from being bound to government work and to Se e1: employment within a specified district. After a few Years of experimentation the ticket-of-leave eventually was developed into a system which called for supervision of the released convicts by qualified individuals in the community. This system was further developed by England and Ireland and was eventually adopted by the United States as a system of parole in 1865. Parole in Michigan was not officially put into use until the enactment of Act 218, P.A. 1895. However, parole was suggested as far back as 1869 when Governor B. . . enry P. Baldwin submitted a report to the legislature 97 which called for the enactment of a parole system. In 1885 the idea of parole was again considered when the governor established an advisory board to deal with the granting of pardons, which in essence was a conditional license to go at large. But, this thesis has marked the origin of parole as 1895 because of the enactment of a parole law. Act 218, P.A. 1895 gave the governor the right to authorize and regulate paroling of convicts in Mi chigan. After the enactment of the 1895 parole law very Li ttle legislative action occurred until Act 403, P.A. 3— 9 2 1. In 1921 legislative action called for the estab- 3- i Shment of a Commissioner of Pardons and Paroles which replaced the Advisory Board on the Matter of Pardons and P aroles. The first parole Commissioner was. Fred Janette of Detroit, Michigan. After a, few years of the above sys tem and because of strong criticism expressed by var- ious legislatures the 1921 Corrections Law was repealed and replaced by Act 255, P.A. 1937. The 1937 "Corrections Law" has been designated as one of the major highlights of the development of Correc- to lQns in Michigan. The 1937 Corrections Law replaced the 98 position of the Conunissioner of Corrections with a Correc- tions Commission which consisted of five, non-salaried members. The Corrections. Commission performed the follow- ing duties: policy determination, development of proced- ural processes, evaluation of administrative decisions, and served as a liaison. between the governor and the legis- lature. Under the 1937 act the Department of Corrections was divided into four bureaus. The four bureaus were as fo llows: Bureau of Prisons, Bureau of Probation, Parole Board, and the Bureau of Pardons and Paroles. Following Act 255, P.A. 1937 an act was passed wh 1 ch» dealt with the paroling of a prisoner serving a life S‘al‘fltence. This act was designated as. Act 173, P.A. 1941.. The "Lifer Law" stated that the parole board could parole any lifer except one serving a life term for first degree l“113:“:3er. Additional guidelines were that the prisoners had t0 Serve at least ten years of their sentence before parole consideration and that the sentencing judge must grant his approval of the parole. Following the passage of the 1941 "Lifer Law" W O}: ld War II was in the process of starting. The war. did 99 not affect the status of the Department of Corrections and allowed the department to continue to work on the three objectives that it set down at the time of the enactment of Act 255, P.A. 1937. The three objectives were as fol- lows: 1) creation of public confidence in the Parole Board, 2) complete separation from political influence, and 3) selection of parole on basis of merit and indi- Vi dual qualifications. In 1947 as a result of Act 4, P.A. 1947 the legis- Lat‘ure replaced the Corrections Commission with a Commis- s i oner of Corrections. The Commissioner of Corrections on ce again assumed the duties of the Commission. The pri- mary purpose of the above law was to once again place the pQWer- of parole back into the hands of the governor. The pa-;‘=‘<:~le board, under Act 4, consisted of three members and Con tinned the same duties as the prior parole board under the‘ 19 37 law. It didn't take long for criticism to again be 1 a"kn-riderhed at the 1947 Corrections act primarily because <>iE . . . . . political pressure on the Comm1sSioner of Corrections. AS 51 result of the above crit1Cism Act 232, P.A. 1953 was 100 enacted and once again replaced the Commissioner of Correc— tions with a Corrections Commission which consisted of six members. However, one major change was the appointment of a Director of Corrections.which controlled the actions of the bureaus under his direction. Also four new bureaus were organized. The four bureaus were: Bureau of Proba- tion, Bureau of Pardons and Paroles, Bureau of Penal In- stitutions, and Bureau of Prison Industries. After the adoption of Act 232, P.A. 1953 the pa- role system and the administrative structure of the Mich- igan Department of Corrections remained somewhat the same. Of particular importance was that the Corrections Commis- sion was changed from six members to five members and al- so four new bureaus were designated once again. The four bureaus were: Bureau of Correctional Facilities, Bureau of Programs, Bureau of Field Services, and Bureau of Ad- ministrative Services. Also under the new change which occurred in 1966 the Parole Board was designated as a separate entity under the direction of only the governor. In summary, parole has been traced from its origin in 1895 to its present status in 1970. It is quite apparent 101 that parole underwent a number of changes and struggles,‘ but it is also apparent that the parole system of Michi— gan benefited greatly from its numerous-changes and experi- ments. Today, Michigan can be considered as one of the most advanced states in parole administration and parole efficiency. APPENDIX A CHARTS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND FUNCTIONAL ORGANIZATIONS FROM 1937 to 1966 102 APPENDIX A CHART I Act 255, P.A. 1937 ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION Michigan Department of Corrections l GOVERNOR CORRECTIONS COMMISSION (Non-salaried, five mem- ber, policy-making body) I DIVISION OF %DIRECTOR ‘ ADMINISTRATIVE STATISTICS | ‘ I SERVICES BUREAU OF BUREAU OF HARD BUREAU OF PRISONS PROBATION BOARD PARDONS and . , - , PAROLES CHART I-A Act 255, P.A. 1937 FINCTIONAL ORGANIZATION Michigan Department of Corrections l GOVERNOR ] J: . 103 CORRECTIONS COMMISSION Policy determination Procedures development and integration Administrative evaluation Foster crime prevention and research in criminolomy Liaison with uovernor and Legislature DIVISION OF STATISTICS Collection and analysis of criminal statistics BUREAU OF PRISONS DIRECTOR ADNIAISTRATIVE SERVICES Inter-state ____, Personnel compact Administer Administration accounts control and supervision ‘ Promulgation of rules and regulations [ l I A BUREAU OF PAROLE BUREAU OF PROBATION BOARD PARDONS AND PAROLES 1041 CHART 2 Act 255, P.A. 1937 ADM] l\ I STRA‘L‘IVF. ORGAJ“. I ZATION Michigan Department of Corrections DIRECTOR l ]f ---:===Fr—— 1 BUREAU OF BORE-1F ()F' PAROLE". Ill'iL‘Lz‘J’ Cl" PRISON}: 1".{08ATION BOARD I‘ARDLKS and 1‘ \RULAS r"“"“‘1 (CENTRAL uwwIc ) (2) Adult larole (1) Adult rarolo Corrections Adm. Corr. Adm. (1) Executive Officer (Also serves as (2) Hearing Reporters Ass't. uir. of (5) Steno-Clerks Dept. and Chairman (1) Account Clerk of three-man INPOIO (2) Clerk-Typists "card (3) Adult Parole Corr . Adm . (1) Adult Varolc Corr. ukr. (1) Executive Officer (1) Employment Placement Executive (1) Steno-uxecutivv (G) Stone-Clerks (1) Typist—Clerk (1) General Clerk (6) DI§TRICT OFFICLS (6) Adult Parole Corr. Adm. (9) Steno-Clerks (1) Clerk-Typist IL (19) FIELD OFFICES (32) Adult Parole Corr. Hkrs. Act CHART 2-A 255, P.A. 1937 FUNCTIONAL ORGANIZATION Michigan Department of Corrections [ 1_, 105 PAROLE BOARD Parole hearings Grant parole releases Parole violation hearings Process applications for reprieve, commutation or pardon Conduct public hearings f reprieve, commutation o pardon Grant certificates of dis charge from parole or sentence BUREAU OF PARDOAS AM} ~. Ad‘s]. Ii; Supervision of parole Supervision of parole officers Investigation of prisoners eligible for parole Development of parole methods and techniques or Collection and maintenance of records r and statistics In-service training ADMINISTRATION Parole planning Pro-parole investigation Parole supervision & parole investigation Legal investigations Lifer parole eligibility examinations Parolee employment aid Preparation and maintenance of socio- criminal records (67 DISTRICT OFFICES Parole supervision Direction and instruction of field parole officers Preparation and maintenance of reports and r cord 1 (19) FIELD OFFICES Pre-parole investigation Parole supervision Preparation of reports and records 106 CHART 3 P.A. 4, Second Extra Session of 1947 ADMINISTRATIVE ORGAAIZATION Michigan Department of Corrections O_l GOVERNOR_] [ ADVISORY COUNCIL 5 Members (per diem and expenses) --‘ LEGAL COUNSEL (1) Attorney (on Attorney General's i"‘ ’ Staff) (1) Law steno COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS l [fUNIT OF CRIMINAL sTATISTICS;1 [ ADMINISTQATIVL SEQVICJS] f 1 DIVISION OF IVISION OF PARDONS r-——1PAROLE BOARD} FRISONS and PAROLES AND PROBATION INDUSTRIES . f (5) DISTRICT PROBATION OFFICES ] | (6) DISTRICT PAROLL OFFICCS } l'Tls) FIELD PROBATION OFFICSSi] {Ifzof FILLD FANCLS OFFICSS l CHART 3-A P.A. 4, Second Extra bession of 1947 FUNCTIONAL ORGAnIZATlON Michigan Department Of Corrections l i GOVERNOR ] ADVISORY COUNCIL Advisory services relating to im- provement of cedures I corrections pro- | I I Policy determination COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS fromulgation of rules and regulations Procudures development and integration Administrative control and supervision Foster crime prevention & research in criminology Liaison with Governor and Legislature [ UNIT OF CRIMINAL STATISTICS Collection, tabulation, compilation, analysis and interpretation of criminal statistics Preparation of reports, special studies, surveys and informational material I f 107 ADMINISTATIVE SERVICES Personnel Administrative Accounts I DIVISION OF PRISONS & DIVISION OF PARDONS PAROLES & PROBATION [ PAROLS BOARD!) INDUSTRIES (continued) 108 CHART 3-A (Cont'd) COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS ] l DIVISION OF PARDONS PAROLES AND PROBATION Supervision of probation and parole Supervision of probation and parole officers Promulgation of rules and regulations relating to probation administration Investigation of prisoners eligibile for parole Development of parole methods and techniques Prescription of records and reports Collection, compilation and maintenance of records and statistics I PAROLE BOARD Parole hearings Grant parole releases rarole violation hearings Process applications for reprieve, commutation or pardon Conduct public hearings for reprieve, commutation or pardon Grant certificate of discharge from parole or sentence 1 III PROBATION ADMINISTRATION Probation supervision ‘re-sentence investigation Development of procedures and records Field analysis and study Processing inter and intra state transfer of probationers Consultation with courts Maintenance of records and reports PAROLE ADMINISTRATION Parole planning Pre-parole investigation Parole supervision and investigation Legal investigations Lifer parole eligibility examinations Parolee employment aid Preparation and maintenance of socio-criminal records (continued) J CHART 3-A (Cont‘d) (5) PROBATION DISTRICT OFFICES Pro-sentence investigation reports Probation supervision Instruction of local probation officers Instruction and direction of field probation officers Intra-state transfer of probationers rreparation and maintenance of records and reports Liaison with courts and county officials (6) PAROLE DISTRICT OFFICES Parole supervision Direction and instruction of field parole officers Preparation and maintenance of reports and records I (20) PAROLE FIELD OFFICL director of the state department of social services, of youthful trainees to the department of social services for admission to any of its facilities for youth, where such facilities are more appropriate for the treatment and supervision of the youth than the facilities of the department of corrections. When the facilities of the department of social services are used by the department of corrections, the youth may be required to abide by the regulations of the department of social services and shall be subject to the same supervision and discipline as other youth in its care. The cost of care of such youth while under the care of the department of social Qua-“Ill. 216 services shall be a charge against the appropriation of the department of social services. The director, having first obtained the approval of the commission, may adopt such further rules and reg- ulations with respect to the affairs of the department as he may deem necessary or expedient for the proper ad- ministration of this act and he may modify, amend, sup- plement or rescind any such rule or regulation. No rule or regulation shall be adopted which shall be inconsis- tent with or in contravention of any of the express pro- visions of this act or the constitution. (791.207) Report to governor and legislature; printing and distribution. Section 7. On or before the 15th day of January of each year, the commission shall make to the governor and legislature, a report of the department for the pre- ceding fiscal year. Such report, if so ordered by the board of state auditors, shall be printed and distributed in such manner and to such persons, organizations, insti- tutions and officials as said board may direct. (791.208) Division of criminal statistics; duty of director. Section 8. Within the department there shall be established a general division of criminal statistics under.the supervision and control of the director. He shall have the power and it shall be his duty to obtain from all chiefs of police, sheriffs, state police, prose- cuting attorneys, courts, judges, parole and probation officers and all others concerned in the control, appre- hension, trial, probation, parole and commitments of adult criminals and delinquents in this state, periodical re- ports as to the number and kinds of offenses known to law enforcement officers; the numbers, age, sex, race, nativ- ity and offenses of criminals and delinquents arrested, tried and otherwise disposed of; the sentence imposed and whether executed or suspended; the numbers placed on parole and probation and the reasons therefor and such other information as he may deem necessary. It shall be the duty of all such chiefs of police, sheriffs, state police, prosecuting attorneys, courts, judges, parole and probation officers and others concerned to make such 217 reports at such times and in such manner, and to furnish such facilities for investigation as the director may reasonably require. (791.209) Commission; duties Section 9. The commission shall study the prob- lem of crime prevention and foster research in criminol- ogy. It shall lend its aid in local crime prevention ac- tivities. (791.210) Same; bond of officers and employees. Section 10. The commission may require a bond from any officer or employee appointed by or subject to the control of the commission, conditioned upon the faith- ful performance of his duties and the accounting for all money and property within his control. (791.211) Same; powers and duties. Section 11. The commission shall exercise the powers and duties created by Act. No. 89 of the Public Acts of 1935, being sections 798.101 to 798.103, inclu- sive, of the Compiled Laws of 1948, and by any interstate compact made and entered into pursuant to said act, in regard to the control and supervision of parolees and probationers, and in regard to cooperative effort and mutual assistance in the prevention of crime and in en- forcement of the penal laws and policies of the contract- ing states, and the commission may promulgate such rules and regulations as may be deemed necessary to more effec- tively carry out the terms of the aforesaid act and com- pacts made pursuant thereto. (791.212) Same; seal; orders; body corporate. Section 12. The commission shall devise a seal, and the rules and regulations of the commission shall be issued over the seal of the commission. Copies of all records and papers in the office of the department, cer- tified by a duly authorized agent of the commission and authenticated by a seal of the commission, shall be evi- dence in all cases equally, and with the like effect, as the originals. A description of the seal, with an impres- sion thereof, shall be filed in the office of the secre- tary of state. The commission shall be a body corporate, and is hereby authorized to lease any lands under its jurisdiction and to do any other act or thing necessary in carrying out the provisions of this act. 218 (791.213) Same; gifts, donations, etc. Section 13. The commission may receive on behalf of the state of Michigan any grant, devise ,bequest, dona- tion, gift or assignment of money, bonds or choses in ac- tion, or of any property, real or personal, and accept the same so that the right and title to same shall pass to the state of Michigan; and all such bonds, notes or choses in action, or the proceeds thereof when collected, and all other property or thing of value so received by the commission shall be used for the purpose set forth in the grant ,devise, bequest, donation, gift or assign- ment; Provided, That such purposes shall be within the powers conferred on said commission. Whenever it shall be necessary to protect or assert the right or title of the commission to any property so received or derived as aforesaid, or to collect or reduce into possession any bond, note, bill or chose in action, the attorney general is directed to take the necessary and proper proceedings and to bring suit in the name of the commission on behalf of the State of Michigan in any court of competent juris- diction, state or federal, and to prosecute all such suits. (791.214) Same; to estimate needs and cost. Section 14. The commission shall prepare for sub- mission to the department of administration the estimated needs and cost to operate the department, and the several penal institutions under the jurisdiction of the depart- ment, in accordance with the requirements of the laws of this state. CHAPTER II BUREAU OF PROBATION Not included. May be found under Act 232, Public Acts. 1953. 219 CHAPTER III BUREAU OF PARDONS AND PAROLES: PAROLE BOARD (791.231) Bureau of pardons and paroles; direc- tion and superVISion of; duties of assistant director; assistants. Section 31. There is established within the de- partment a bureau of pardons and paroles, under the di- rection and supervision of an assistant director in charge of pardons and paroles, who shall be appointed by the di- rector and who shall be within the state civil service. He shall direct and supervise the work of the bureau and shall formulate methods of investigation and supervision and develop various processes in the techniques of the case work of the parole staff, including interviewing, consultation of records, analysis of information, diag- nosis, plan of treatment, correlation of effort by indi- viduals and agencies, and methods of influencing human behavior. He shall be responsible for all investigations of persons eligible for release from state penal institu- tions, and for the general supervision of persons so re- leased. The assistant director in charge of the bureau of pardons and paroles shall be responsible for the col- lection and preservation of such records and statistics with respect to paroled prisoners as may be required by the director. He shall employ such parole officers and assistants as may be necessary, subject to the approval of the commission. He shall designate l of his assistants as employment director, whose duty, primarily, shall be to aid persons coming under the supervision of the bureau of pardons and paroles in securing employment. The assis- tant director shall, subject to the approval of the com- mission, divide the state into geographical parole dis- tricts and shall designate a parole officer as district supervisor of each such district. The assistant director shall select such secretarial and other assistants as may be necessary for each such parole district under the merit system hereinbefore described, and may obtain permanent quarters for such staff in each such district as may be necessary. 220 (791.232) Parole board, members, appointment, chairman, powers and duties. Section 32. There is hereby established in the department a parole board consisting of 5 members who shall be appointed by the commission and who shall be within the state civil service. The chairman of the parole board shall be designated by the commission from the membership of the parole board. The parole board shall exercise and perform the powers and duties pre- scribed and conferred by this act and such other powers and duties as may be assigned by the commission. (791.233) Granting parole, provisions. Section 33. The grant of any parole shall be sub- ject to the following provisions. (a) That no prisoner shall be given his liberty on parole until the board has reasonable assurance after consideration of all of the facts and circumstances, in— cluding the prisoner's mental and social attitude, that he will not become a menace to society or to the public safety; (b) That no parole shall be granted to any pri- soner until he has served the minimum term imposed by the court less such allowances for good time or special good time as he may be entitled to by statute: Provided, That prisoners shall be eligible for parole prior to the ex- piration of their minimum terms of imprisonment whenever the sentencing judge or his successor in office shall give his written approval of the parole of such prisoner prior to the expiration of such minimum terms of impris— onment; (c) That no prisoner shall be released on parole until the parole board shall have satisfactory evidence that arrangements have been made for such honorable and useful employment as he is capable of performing, or for his education, or for his care if he is mentally or phys- ically ill or incapacitated. Paroles-in-custody to answer warrants filed by local, out-of-state agencies of immigration officials are permissible, provided an accredited agent of the agency filing the warrant shall call for the prisoner so paroled in custody. The parole board, in its discre- tion, may adopt such other or further rules and regulations 221 not inconsistent with the foregoing provisions with re— spect to conditions to be imposed upon paroled prisoners under this act. Section 33a. In determining a prisoner's fitness to be released on parole, the parole board may give con- sideration to instances of voluntary assistance to medi- cal and other scientific research and blood donations. (791.234) Jurisdiction of parole board over pri- sioners; indeterminate and other sentences. Section 34. Every prisoner sentenced to an inde- terminate sentence and confined in a state prison or re- formatory, and any convict who is now imprisoned under a maximum sentence for life, with a minimum in terms of years, who shall have served the minimum so provided, notwithstanding that such sentence may otherwise be con- strued as a life sentence, and the term of years a null- ity, when he has served a period of time equal to the minimum sentence imposed by the court for the crime of which he was convicted, less allowances made for good time and special good time, shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the parole board. Same; consecutive sentences; computation of time. In case the prisoner is sentenced for consecutive terms, whether received at the same time or at any time during the life of the original sentence, the parole board shall have jurisdiction over the prisoner for purposes of parole when he shall have served the total time of the added minimum terms, less the good time credit allowed by statute. The maximum terms of the sentence shall be added to compute the new maximum term under this provi- sion and discharge shall be issued only after the sum of such maximum sentences has been served less the good time credit the prisoner may earn or may be awarded by appro- priate order; unless the procedure of parole shall inter- vene and discharge issue upon satisfactory completion of said parole, in which case the maximum term shall be dis- charged. Same; termination of sentence presently being served; ratification of orders. Whenever any convict shall have 1 or more consec- utive terms remaining to serve in addition to the term he is serving, the parole board shall be empowered to 222 terminate the sentence such convict shall be presently serving at any time, in the board's discretion, after the minimum term of such sentence has been served. All orders of termination of maximum sentences heretofore executed by the parole board or any former parole commissioner are hereby ratified and adopted retroactive nunc pro tune as of date of execution. Public hearing; notice to sentencing judge; pa- role period, validation. Any convict who now is, or hereafter may be im- prisoned in any one of the prisons or reformatories of this state under sentence for life or for any term of years, other than those so sentenced for life for murder in the first degree, and who shall have served 10 calen- dar years of such sentence, shall be subject to the au- thority and jurisdiction of the parole board and may be released on parole in the discretion of the parole board: Provided, however, That no parole shall be granted any convict so sentenced and so imprisoned except after pub- lic hearing in the manner hereinafter prescribed for par- dons and commutations, except that 2 members of the parole board may conduct such public hearing: Provided, further that notice of such public hearing shall be given to the sentencing judge, or his successor in office, and said parole shall not be granted in case said sentencing judge, or his successor in office, shall file written objections to the granting thereof, which written objections shall be made part of the hearing. Parole so granted any con- vict so sentenced and so imprisoned shall be for a period of not less than 4 years, and subject to the usual rules appertaining to paroles issued by the parole board: Pro- vided, however, that no parole ordered for a convict whose sentence for life or for a minimum term equaling or exceeding 10 calendar years shall become valid until the transcript of the record shall have been filed with the attorney general whose certification of receipt thereof shall within 5 days be returnable to the office of the parole board. And such file shall become a public record as in the manner made and provided for pardons and commutations. 223 Time of release. The time of his release on parole shall be dis- cretionary with the parole board. The action of the pa- role board in releasing prisoners shall not be reviewable if in compliance with law. (791.235) Release of prisoner. Section 35. The-release of a prisoner on parole shall be granted solely upon the initiative of the parole board. At least 1 month prior to the expiration of the minimum term of each prisoner eligible for parole, less good time or special good time allowances, it shall be the duty of the parole board to cause each prisoner to be brought before it, together with all pertinent informa- tion with regard to such prisoner. Included in such in- formation shall be a report of the warden of each prison or reformatory in which such prisoner has been confined as to the prisoner's conduct with a detailed statement as to all infractions of rules and discipline, punishment given to such prisoner and the circumstances connected therewith; the extent to which such prisoner appears to have responded to the efforts made to improve his social attitude; the prisoner's industrial record while confined, the nature of such occupation, and a recommendation as to the kind of work he is best fitted to perform and at which he is most likely to succeed when he is released; and the results of such physical, mental and psychiatric examina- tions as have been made of the prisoner. The parole board shall reach its own conclusions as to the desirability of releasing such prisoner on parole. All decisions of the parole board shall be by majority vote. (791.236) Issuance of parole; signatures, notice to sheriff; amendment, conditions. Section 36. All paroles shall issue upon order of the parole board, duly adopted, and shall be signed by.the chairman; notice thereafter shall be given the sheriff, in writing, or other local police officers of the municipality or county in which the prisoner was con- victed, and to the sheriff or other local police officer of the municipality or county to which the paroled pris- oner is sent. Any order of parole may be amended, revised, modified or rescinded at the discretion of the parole board. Whenever an order for parole is issued it shall 224 contain the conditions thereof and shall specifically pro- vide proper-means of supervision of the paroled prisoner in accordance with the rules and regulations of the board and under the direction of the bureau of pardons and pa- roles created by this act. (791.237) Clothing and non-transferable ticket to release prisoner. Section 37. Whenever any prisoner is released upon parole he shall receive from the state clothing and a non-transferable ticket to the place in which he is to reside. At the discretion of the assistant director in charge of the bureau of pardons and paroles, the prisoner may be advanced the expenses of such transportation, and such further sums, not to exceed $40.00, as the assistant director may direct for his temporary maintenance. Fail- ure of the paroled prisoner to return such sums of money within 90 days may be declared to be a violation of his parole. (791.238) Custody of paroled prisoner; warrant for return; treated as an escaped prisoner; forfeiture of good time; committing crime while at large. Section 38. Every prisoner on parole, except those paroled in custody, shall remain in the legal cus- tody and under the control of the commission. The~assis- tant director of the bureau of pardons and paroles is hereby authorized, at any time in his discretion, and upon a showing of probable violation of parole, to issue a warrant for the return of any paroled prisoner to any penal institution in the state under the control of the commission. Pending hearing within 30 days after return of such paroled prisoner, upon any charge of parole vio- lation, the prisoner shall remain incarcerated in such penal institution. A prisoner violating the provisions of his parole and for whose return a warrant has been issued by the assistant director of the bureau of pardons and paroles shall, after.the issuance of such warrant, be treated as an escaped prisoner owing service to the state, and shall be liable, when arrested, to serve out the unexpired por- tion of his maximum imprisonment, and the time from the- date of his declared delinquency to the date of his arrest 225 shall not be counted as any part or portion of the time to be served. The warrant of the assistant director of the bureau of pardons and paroles shall be a sufficient warrant authorizing all officers names therein to return the paroled prisoner to actual custody in the penal insti- tution from which he was released. If any paroled prisoner shall fail to return to the prison enclosure when required by the assistant di- rector of the bureau of pardons and paroles, or if he makes escape while on parole, he shall be treated in all respects as if he had escaped from the prison enclosure, and shall be subject to be retaken as provided by the laws of this state. The parole board, in its discretion, may cause the forfeiture of all good time to the date of the de- clared.delinquency. Any prisoner committing a crime while at large upon parole and being convicted and sentenced therefor shall be treated as to the last incurred term, as pro- vided under section 34 of this act. A parole granted a prisoner shall be construed simply as a permit to such prisoner to go without the enclosure of the prisoner, and not as a release, and while so at large he shall be deemed to be still serv- ing out the sentence imposed upon him by the court, and shall be entitled to good time the same as if he were confined in prison. (791.239) Arrest without warrant. Section 39. Any probation officer, any parole officer, or any peace officer of this state may arrest without warrant, and surrender to the warden of any penal institution of this state, any paroled prisoner, whenever he was reasonable grounds to believe that the prisoner has violated his parole. (791.240) Accused prisoner; hearing, witnesses, subpoena. Section 40. Whenever a paroled prisoner is accused of a violation of his parole, other than the commission of, and conviction for, a felony or-misde- meanor under the laws of this state, he shall be entitled to a fair and impartial hearing of such charges within 30 days before 2 members of the parole board under such rules 226 and regulations as the parole board may adopt. Upon such hearing such paroled prisoner shall be allowed to be heard‘ by counsel of his own.choice, at his own expense, and may defend himself, and he shall have the right to produce witnesses and proofs in his favor and to meet the witnesses who are produced against him. If such paroled prisoner shall make it appear to the satisfaction of the board that there.is a material witness in his favor within this state without whose testimony he cannot safely proceed to hear- ing, and that such paroled prisoner is without funds and cannot obtain the means to procure the attendance of such witness at the place of hearing, the assistant director, having obtained the place of residence of such witness, shall have power to issue a subpoena to compel guidance of such witness, or any other witness. It shall be the duty of the officer to whom such subpoena is delivered for service to serve the same and of the witness named therein to attend such hearing. The officer serving such subpoena shall be paid therefor and the witness named therein shall be paid for attending such hearing in the same manner as if such witness had been supoenaed in be- half of the people. (791.241) Order rescinding or reinstating parole. Section 41. When the parole board has determined the matter it shall enter an order rescinding such parole, or reinstating the original order of parole or enter such other order as it may see fit. (791.242) Final order of discharge; certificate; period of parole. Section 42. When any paroled prisoner has faith- fully performed all of the conditions and obligations of his parole for the period of time fixed in such order, and has obeyed all of the rules and regulations adopted by the parole board, he shall be deemed to have served his full sentence, and the parole board shall enter a final order of discharge and issue to the paroled pris- oner a certificate of discharge. No parole shall be granted for a period less than 2 years in all cases of murder, actual forcible rape, rob- bery armed, kidnapping, extortion, or breaking and enter— ing an occupied dwelling in the night time except where 227 the maximum time remaining to be served on the sentence is less than 2 years. (791.243) Applications; filing, information. Section 43. All applications for pardons, re- prieves and commutations shall be filed with the parole board upon forms provided therefor by the parole board, and shall contain such information, records and documents as the parole board may by rule require. (791.244) Reprieves, commutations and pardons, applications for, hearing, investigations. Section 44. Subject to the constitional author- ity of the governor to grant reprieves, commutations and pardons, the parole board shall, upon receipt of any ap-- plication for reprieve, commutation, or pardon: (a) Deliver the original application to the gov- ernor and retain a copy thereof in its file pending in- vestigation and hearing; and (b) Within 10 days after receipt of any applica- tion forward to the sentencing judge, and to the prosecut- ing attorney of the county having original jurisdiction of case, or their successors in office, a written notice of the filing thereof, together with copies of the appli- cation, the supporting affidavits, and a brief summary of the case. Within 10 days after receipt of the filing of any application, it shall be the duty of the sentencing judge and the prosecuting attorney, or their successors in office, to file with the parole board, in writing, such information as may be at their disposal, together with such objections as they may desire to interpose to such application. (c) In all cases where the applicant applies for a reprieve, commutation or pardon, the parole board shall conduct a public hearing before recommending executive clemency. Two members of the board may conduct such hear- ing and the public shall be represented by the attorney general or a member of his staff. (d) At least 5 days prior to any public hearing written notice thereof shall be transmitted by mail to the attorney general, to the sentencing trial judge and to the prosecuting attorney, or their successors. 228 (e) Public hearing shall be conducted pursuant to the provisions of this act, and in accordance with such rules and regulations as the commission may adopt. Any person having information to divulge, in connection with any application for pardon, commutation or reprieve, shall be sworn as a witness. And in hearing testimony, the parole board shall give to any technical rules of evidence a liberal construction. (f) The parole board shall in each case make a full investigation and recommendation, and shall make all data in its files available to the governor. The files of the parole board in such cases be matters of public record. (791.245) Oath, administering. Section 45. In the conduct of any hearing or investigation as herein provided any member of the pa- role board may administer the oath to any witness. CHAPTER IV BUREAU OF PENAL INSTITUTIONS Not included, May be found in Act 232, P.A. 1953. CHAPTER-V BUREAU OF PRISON INDUSTRIES Not included. May be found in Act 232, P.A. 1953. CHAPTER VI MISCELLANEOUS Not included. May be found in Act 232, P.A. 1953. 229 Act 380, P.A. 1965 The Michigan constitution of 1963 limits the executive branch of state government to not more than 20 principal departments. The department of corrections was established as one of the 20 principal departments under the Executive Organization Act of 1965 (Act No. No. 380, P.A. 1965). Section 275. There is hereby created a depart- ment of corrections. Section 276. The head of the department of cor- rections is the commission of corrections. Section 277. The department of corrections cre- ated under section 1 of Act No. 232 of the Public Acts of 1953, being section 791.201 of the Compiled Laws of 1948, is transferred by a type I transfer to the depart- ment of corrections. (As a type I transfer under.the Executive organization Act of 1965, the department of corrections did not acquire or lose any functional re- sponsibility.) Section 278. The commission of corrections shall consist of 5 members, not more than 3 of whom shall be members of the same political party, appointed by the governor by and with the advice and consent of the senate. The term of office of each member shall be 4 years, ex- cept that of members first appointed for 2 years shall be appointed for 1 year, 1 shall be appointed for 2 years, 1 shall be appointed for 3 years and 1 shall be appointed for 4 years. A member appointed to fill a vacancy occur-, ring other than by expiration of a term shall be appointed for the unexpired term. The commission shall elect from its members such officers as it deems advisable. A major- ity of the commission members shall be required to consti- tute a quorum. 230 Section 279. The principal executive officer of the department is the director of the department of cor- rections. The director shall be appointed by the commis- sion and serve at its pleasure. The Constitution also authorizes the Governor to make changes in the organizational structure of the exec- utive branch considered necessary for efficient administra- tion. Pursuant to this Constitutional authority, the ad— ministrative structure of the Department of corrections was reorganized by executive order in January of 1966 with the establishment of four administrative bureaus each un- der the supervision of a deputy director. The four bureaus and their functional responsibilities are: Bureau of Correctional Facilities. The Bureau has administrative control over all institutional operations. Basic functions include the inspection and evaluation of penal institutional procedures, including inmate process- ing (receiption of processes, classification, and the in- terfacility transfer of inmates). Because of the special- ized treatment needs of youthful offenders, administrative supervision of the institutions is divided between the fa- cilities for youth and those for adults. The Bureau also executes the Department's regulatory responsibilities with the respect of local jails and places of.detention. Bureau of Programs. The Bureau provides a basic staff function of developing, coordinating, and evaluat- ing correctional treatment processes both at the institu- tional and field service levels. Under general supervi- sion of the Bureau are diagnostic methods, adult counsel- ing, education, recreation, the Chaplaincy, correlation of inmate work assignments with individual treatment.pro- grams, and citizen participation activities. Bureau of Field Services. The Bureau has general supervision of the administration of state probation and parole services, and develops uniform parole and probation procedures, reports and records. It provides advisory and consultive service to local agencies in program of crime prevention. Liaison with the courts-is maintained rela- tive to probation matters. The deputy director in charge issues warrants for apprehension and return of parole vio- lators. 231 Bureau of Administrative Services. The Bureau has administrative service and operational responsibili— ties as follows: Fiscal control and budget preparation, facilities planning, data systems and information services, operational research, management of prison industries, management of personnel and employee relations and train- ing, and maintenance of inmate files. APPENDIX C PAROLE BOARD PERSONNEL: 1894 to 1970 APPENDIX C PAROLE BOARD PERSONNEL 1894 Harsen D. Smith Nelson R. Gilbert, M.D. Charles F. Beck Charles L. Rarden J. H. Cole 1896 Harsen D. Smith Nelson R. Gilbert, M.D. Charles F. Beck. Charles L. Rarden J. H. Cole 1898 Charles F. Beck Harsen D. Smith Charles G. Turnes A. W. Saxton S. A. Tomlinson 1901 Charles Turner. F. W. Shumway W. R. Kendrick Russel R. Pealer 1905 William R. Kendrick Edwin A. Blakeslee Frank W. Shumway Cassopolis West Bay City Detroit Greenville Lapeer Cassopolis West Bay City Detroit Greenville Lapeer Detroit Cassopolis Traverse City Jackson Lansing Traverse City Williamston Saginaw Three Rivers Saginaw Galien Williamston 1907 Blakeslee Wilson Kendrick Edwin A. Walter E. William R. 1909 Henry F. Thomas Vacancy Edwin A. Blakeslee 1911 F. J. Russel Nelson C. Rice James B. Bradley 1913 Rice Roche Travis Nelson C. Andrew C. DeHull N. Designated by law: 1915 John C. Brown, M.D. Alfred E. Souter G. W. Schneider Designated by law: 234 Galien Grand Ledge Saginaw Allegan Galien Hart St. Joseph Eaton Rapids St. Joseph Kearsarge Flint one member of the board is required to be an attorney at law and one member is required to be a physician. Battle Creek Shelby St. Joseph one member is required to be an attorney at law, one member is required to be a physician and one member shall be the executive clerk to the governor and shall be secretary to the board. 1917 Alfred Souter G. W. Schneider Frank W. Shumway, M.D. 1919 G. W. Schneider Frank W. Shumway, M.D. Franklin E. Sayre 1921-1925 Fred B. Janette 1221_ Arthur D. Wood 1222 Arthur D. Wood 1931 Ray 0. Brundage 1933 W. Alfred Debo 1935 Joseph C. Armstrong 1937 M. Hubert O'Brein (Chairman) Gerald F. Bush John Eliasohn 235 Shelby St. Joseph Lansing St. Joseph Lansing Flushing Detroit Munising Munising Kalamazoo Detroit Detroit Detroit Ann Arbor Ludington. 1939 A. Ross Pascoe Gerald F. Bush John Eliasohn 1941 A. Ross Pascoe Gerald F. Bush John Eliasohn 1943 A. Ross Pascoe Gerald F. Bush John Eliasohn 1945 A. Ross Pascoe Gerald F. Bush John Eliasohn 1947 A. Ross Pascoe Gerald F. Bush John Eliasohn 1949 A. Ross Pascoe Fred C. Sanborn (Chairman) (Chairman) (Chairman) (Chairman) (Chairman) Sydney Moskowitz John Trudell Gus Harrison and Rev. Ralph Ferris were named acting directors. Lansing Ann Arbor Ludington Lansing Ann Arbor Ludington Lansing Ann Arbor Ludington Lansing Ann Arbor Ludington Lansing Ann Arbor Ludington 236 1951 A. Ross Pascoe Fred C. Sanborn Sydney Moskowitz John Trudell Leonard R. McConnell Gus Harrison served as acting director. 1953-1959 A. Ross Pascoe Roy H. Nelson John A. Trudell Fred C. Sanborn Leonard R. McConnell 1960 John A. MacLellon A. Ross Pascoe Roy H. Nelson John A. Trudell Leonard R. McConnell 1961-1964 John A. Trudell Francis G. Buchko Gordon Fuller Leonard R. McConnell John A. MacLellan _1_9_._§_ John Spencer John A. Trudell Leonard R. McConnell Francis B. Buchko Gordon Fuller 237 1966-1969 Leonard R. McConnell John A. Trudell Donald~Thurston Francis G. Buchko Gordon Fuller 1970 Leonard R. McConnell Francis G. Buchko Gordon Fuller Donald Thurston Robert Scott 238 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Bagley, J. "Governor's Report on Pardons." Lansing, 1877. Barbour, Levi L. "Jails." A paper read at the conven- tion of county agents of the State Board of Cor- rections and Charities of Michigan, December 9th and 10th, 1844, Kalamazoo, Michigan. Barnes, Harry E. The Evolution of Penology in Pennsylf vania. New Jersey: Patterson Smith, 1968. Barnes, 0. M. Prison System of Michigan. Lansing: Robert Smith Printing Co., 1899. Board of Control and Officers. Biennial Report of the State House of Corrections and Branch of State Prison in Upper.Peninsula.. Two years ending June 30, 1896. Lansing: Robert Smith Printing Co., 1897. Bramer, John P. A Treatise: Giving the History, Organ- ization and Administration of Parole.;.New York: The Irving Press,-l926. - Bureau of Pardons and Paroles. Igur Parole. .Lansing: The Department, 1938. Bureau of Probation. Handbook of Probation. Lansing: The Department, 1938. . The Treatment of the Criminal. Papers and Addresses of the Eleventh Annual Institute-of.' Social Work, July 10-14, 1939, at Michigan State College, Lansing: Probation News, 1939. 241 Bush, Gerald F. "The Parole Board at Work." Paper read at the Seventh Annual Conference of the Michigan Probation Association, September 7, 1939, Olivet, Michigan. Carr, Lowell J. What's Wrong With Juvenile Probation and Parole in Michigan. Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 1936. Cutter, S. S.; C. I. Walker, and F. H. Rankin. Report of the Special Commissioners to Examine the Panel, Reformatory and Charitable Institutions of the State of Michigan.. Lansing, Michigan: W. S. George & Co., 1871. Detroit News, March 27, 1949. . September 6, 1957. Elliot, Philip, A. B. Corcoran, and W. M. Hoelman. "Penal Progress: Parole." Sound Recordings of Penal Progress over WKAR and WKARPFM, Discs 37 and 38,~ August 23, and August 30, 1950. Records available at Michigan Historical Society. Fox, Noel P. "Survey of the Michigan Corrections System." Survey submitted to Governor G. MennenWilliamg of Michigan, June, 1949, Lansing: Michigan. Fox, Vernon. "Penal Progress: Factors in Parole Consid-‘ eration." Sound;Recordings of Penal Progress over WKAR and WKAR-FM, Disc 70, November 21, 1951. Records available at Michigan Historical Society. Frisbie, General. "Penal Progress: Release of Lifer.“ Sound Recordings of Penal Progress over WKAR and WKAR-FM, Disc 40, March 1, 1950. Record available at Michigan Historical Society. . "Penal Progress: Release Through Parole." Sound Recordings of Penal Progress over WKAR and WKAR-FM, Disc 39 and reverse, February 15 and 22, 242 1950. Records available at Michigan Historical Society. . "Penal Progress: Women on Parole." Sound Re- cordings of Penal Progress over WKAR and WKAR-FM, Disc 38,January 11, 1950. Record available at Michigan Historical Society. Hicks, Richard P. and J. C. Brown. "Penal Progress: Parole and Social Agencies." Sound recordings of Penal Progress over WKAR and WKAReFM, Disc 46, July 26, 1950. Record available at Michigan Historical Society. Joint Prison and Affiliated Boards of Michigan. Proposed Prison Legislatiop, Present Laws in Force and Rea- sons Why Changes are Desirable. Report to State Officers, Senators and Representatives, December 28, 1912, Lansing, Michigan. Lansing State Journal, June 25, 1953. Michigan. Laws Relating to Board of Corrections & Chari- ties, Juvenile Courts and County Agents. Lansing, 1911. Michigan. Messages of the Governors of Michigan.--4 Vols. Lansing: Michigan Historical Society, 1927. Michigan. Public Acts. (1871). Michigan. Public Acts. (1879). Michigan. Public Acts. (1885). Michigan. Public Acts. (1889). Michigan. Public Acts. (1891). Michigan. Public Acts. (1893). Michigan. Public Acts. (1895). Michigan. Michigan. Michigan. Michigan. Michigan. Michigan. Michigan. Michigan. Michigan. Michigan. Michigan. Michigan. Public Acts. Public Acts. Pgblic Acts. Public Acts. Public Acts. Public Acts. Public Public ACtS s Acte. Public Public Acts. Acts. Public Acts. Public Acts. Michigan Compiled Laws Annotated. 243 (1903). (1905). (1913). (1917)., (1921). (1931). (1937). (1941). (1947). (1953). (1965). (1966). West Publishing Co., St. Michigan Department of Corrections. Paul, Minnesota, 1968. First Biennial Re- port of Michigan's Correctional System.- Lansing, 1937-1938. Michigan, Third Biennial Report of Michiganls Correc- tional System. C W Lansing, Michigan, 1941-i945? Fourth Biennial Report of Michigan's Correc— tional System. Paroles in Michigen. Lansing, Michigan, 1943-1944. History of Probation, Prisons, Pardons and Lansing: 'The Department, 1938. 244 . Manual for Michigan Parole Agents. March 1, 1936, Lansing, Michigan. . "Michigan Corrections." Lansing, Michigan, 1949. (Mimeographed.) . "Michigan Corrections Act (Act 232,-P.A. 1953)" Lansing: 1967. . "Parole in Michigan." Lansing, Michigan: 1955. (Mimeographed.) "Parole in Michigan." Lansing, Michigan: 1968. (Mimeographed.) W . "Parole Officers In-Service Training Program." Lansing, Michigan, 1949-1950. "Parole Supervision." Paper prepared for and by the Bureau of Pardons and Paroles, 1945, Lansing, Michigan. . Reperts of the Board of Corrections-and Chari- ties. Lansing: W. S. George & Co., 1869-1880. "Report of the Bureau of Prisons, Bureau of Pardons and Paroles and Bureau of Probation to the Department of Corrections." Mimeographed Series, March 1946, 1947-let, 2nd and 3rd quar- ters. . "Report of Meetings of the Joint Prison and Affiliated Boards of Michigan." Dates included are: August 30, 1911; January 16, 1912; Febru-7 ary 15, 1911, and January 10, 1910. Lansing: 1910-1912. . "Reports of Proceedings of the Advisory Board in the Matter of Pardons." Lansing, 1894-1936. Available at Michigan Historical Society. 245 . "Second Biennial Report of Michigan Department of Corrections." Lansing, Michigan, 1939-1940. . "Your Michigan Corrections Department." Lansing, Michigan, 1969. . "Statistical Report Submitted to the Social Welfare Department." Lansing, Michigan, 1936. Moran, Frederick A. The Origins of Parole. State of New York: Division of Parole. (New York: n.n. 1948.) National Parole Institutes. A Survey of the Organization of Parole Systems. The National Council On Crime and Delinquency, Publication III, December 1963. National Probation and Parole Association. Adult Proba- tion and Parole in Michigan. A report submitted to the Michigan Department of Corrections, Illi- nois: The Association, January, 1955. "Costs of Michigan Corrections Program." Illinois, December, 1958. W Phillipson, Coleman. Three Criminal Law Reformers. New York: Dutton Press, 1923. Reports of the Special Commissioners to examine the penal reformatory and charitable institutions of the state of Michigan. Property of the Michigan De- partment of Corrections. Report of Commissioners Cutter, Walker, and Rankin, April 3, 1869. Sanford, Joseph W. "Penal Progress: Individual Treat-' ment." Sound Recordings of Penal Progress over WKAR and WKAR-FM, Disc 15, November 24, 1948. Record Available at Michigan Historical Society. Wood, Arthur D. "Special Report of the Commissioner of Pardons and Paroles.“ Lansing, Michigan: Michi- gan Department of Corrections, January 7, 1928. 246 . Repcrt of the Commissioner of Pardons and Paroles for calendar years December 31, 1927 and 1928. Lansing, 1929. "I7iiiliiliiliiiS