Field agent reported on June 25, 1921: "Wrecked borrowed car, found dead drunk a couple of times. Father says he acted much like he did years ago when sent to Toledo Asylum for dipsomania."

No action to date as a violator.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The principal conclusions may be summarized as follows:

1. The pardoning power has, in our judgment, been more extensively resorted to than should be necessary. In part this seems to have been due to a view that the minimum sentence in certain cases was too long. The fluctuation in number of pardons in different years apparently indicates an absence of recognized policy.

2. Many pardons have been granted even for the most serious offenses. During the past six years pardons and commutations were granted to 31 persons convicted of murder in the first degree, and to 89 convicted of murder in the second degree. Of the 211 committed for first or second-degree murder during the ten years 1900-1909, 135, or 64 per cent., were released before November 15, 1921, on which date only nine of the 211 remained in the penitentiary. In view of the fact that in Ohio intent to kill is an essential element of murder in either degree, question may be raised whether an average of 20 persons per year convicted of first- or second-degree murder should receive pardons or commutations.

3. The time served by those receiving pardons and commutations was generally short in comparison with the sentence imposed. For example, the average time actually served by the 121 persons sentenced to life imprisonment and receiving pardons or commutations during the past six years, was six years, eight months, and twenty-five days. Of the 211 first- and second-degree murderers committed during the ten years 1900-1909, 135 were released in less than twenty years, 132 in less than fifteen years, 78 in less than ten years, and 21 in less than five years. 4. In a number of cases the reason stated for granting the pardon or commutation was inadequate or improper; e. g., "in honor of a holiday" (such as Greek Independence Day, Jewish New Year's, etc.), and “lack of mental responsibility."

5. In some cases the information available was either insufficient to warrant action or directly pointed to a refusal.

6. Enforcement of conditions attached to pardons and commutations has not been sufficiently strict.

As a result of these conditions, the public is justified in feeling that its security has not been properly considered in the exercise of the

pardoning power. In order that the public safety may be more effectually guarded, the following recommendations are offered:

1. Pardons should be granted only in cases where adequate evidence indicates that injustice has been done, and in order at least partially to remedy that injustice; or in rare cases to reward an extraordinary deed of heroism or fidelity. In all other cases where executive action is deemed to be necessary, it should be in the form of a commutation.

2. Commutations should be granted only where adequate evidence indicates that the minimum sentence was unduly long and that the interests of society as well as of the individual will be promoted; in other words, only in order to enable the Board of Parole to act in necessary cases where the law now prevents their acting. The sentimental practice of granting holiday commutations, with little or no apparent other reason, should be discontinued.

3. Conditions attached to a pardon or commutation should be strictly enforced. The statute should be at once amended so that there may be no doubt as to the power of the State's field officers to take summary action with violators of parole conditions.

4. The parole system should be thoroughly reorganized.

The Board of Pardon and Parole should not hold office at the pleasure of the director of public welfare as is now the case. The effect of this arrangement is to render the appointment of qualified and experienced persons much less likely, and to make them much more susceptible to political or other pressure while in office. A statutory amendment would be needed to effect this change.

The Board of Pardon and Parole should not be limited to a mere "turn-'em-loose" function. If the Board has no responsibility for seeing that its decisions are justified and the conditions of parole imposed by it are enforced, its action can hardly fail to become more perfunctory. The Board should be charged with the enforcement of the parole system as well as its quasi-judicial aspect.

In order to perform this duty, the field officers now attached to the several institutions should be transferred to the Superintendent of Pardon and Parole and should be increased in number. This would also lead to greater economy, as there is at present a duplication of traveling over the same territory.

An adequate record system should at once be installed and maintained to afford the requisite information, without which official action. is mere guesswork.

Before release physical and mental examinations should be given

and investigations made of the home, industrial, and community condition to which the paroled prisoner would return.

Many of the foregoing recommendations can be effected without legislation. The governor can inaugurate a more guarded use of his constitutional pardoning powers; can establish a suitable distinction between pardons and commutations; can direct a stricter enforcement of conditions; and can bring about a more efficient and economical administration of the parole system. If he believes these changes desirable, there need, therefore, be no delay in proceeding to inaugurate them.

APPENDIX V

REPORT OF INTELLIGENCE SURVEY OF THE CLEVELAND

A

POLICE DEPARTMENT

BY E. K. WICKMAN

Psychologist, Division of the Criminologist, Illinois

SURVEY of the intelligence of the personnel of the Division of Police of Cleveland was made in connection with the survey of the administration of justice conducted by the Cleveland Foundation. Mental ratings on 979 officers, detectives, and patrolmen were secured by the use of the army Alpha Intelligence Examination.

The survey was made with the coöperation of the Chief of Police, Frank W. Smith, who ordered the men of his department assembled for the examination and who lent his coöperation and influence to their effective administration and completion. The examinations were not compulsory for the men, with the exception of those in the training school. Orders by the Chief of Police were issued for all men who were on active. duty during the three days of the survey to report for the examination, but the actual examination was taken voluntarily. There were, however, no men in the department who declined to submit to the tests.

The 979 men who were examined compose over 90 per cent. of the entire department, and the men who were not rated were not actually available for the examination during the three days of the survey. The general orders for the assembling of the men called for one-half of one of the four platoons for each group examination. The examinations were made on the salary time of the men, and the groups were assembled at 1, 2, and 3 o'clock in the afternoons, and at 7.30 and 10 o'clock in the evenings. The 979 men include officers (captains, lieutenants, and sergeants), detectives, men of the vice bureau, the traffic, mounted, emergency, and regular patrolmen, and the members of the training school.

The intelligence examination used was the army Alpha examination, the scale employed for literates in the examination of officers and recruits in the United States army. The army procedure in the administration of the examination was adhered to in all respects. The groups varied in size from 10 to 90 men. With the exception of the captains and detec

tives, the groups were assembled in the training school class-room of the Eighth Precinct Police Station. All five forms of the Alpha examination were employed, so as to avoid possible coaching.

The papers were later scored by special clerks, and intelligence ratings were assigned to all the men on the basis of the army letter rating scale, as given on page 66, footnote 1.

The distribution of intelligence ratings for the officers, detectives, and various divisions of the patrolmen is shown in Tables 4 and 5, page 68, and in Diagram 1, below.

Diagram 1.-Intelligence ratings of divisions of Cleveland police department.

About 40 per cent. of the officers of the department rate in the superior grades of intelligence. These ratings were secured by about 13.5 per cent. of the draft army. Another 32 per cent. of the officers are of high average intelligence; about 20 per cent. are average, while 6 per cent. are low average. There are no representatives among the officers in the inferior grades of intelligence.

Of the patrolmen, there are 12 per cent. in the superior grades, 28 per cent. are high average, while the greatest percentage (34) are average. There is a heavier percentage of patrolmen in the low average group than in the superior groups, and about 3 per cent. are definitely in the inferior grades of intelligence. Of the various divisions of the patrolmen, the emergency and mounted police have the higher intelligence distributions.