The first step in the administration of the criminal law is to catch the criminal. Whether he is to be treated in the light of modern knowledge and scientific methods, or punished severely without thought of the future, is a secondary consideration at this stage of the proceedings. The first lines of social defense are the police departments of the country. They constitute the civic armies of peace. Society must depend upon their adequacy and their efficiency for the orderly conduct of its affairs. Many localities throughout the country have failed to provide an adequate police force in both number and quality for their protection. The most startling thing in any discussion of the crime problem is the small number of criminals who are caught by the police. Here we have a situation of fundamental importance. If our agencies for the apprehension of the anti-social are ineffectual, the very foundation stone of our legal structure is threatened. The reports of the National Crime Commission have devoted a great deal of attention to this situation, and they point out that unwise considerations of economy in this connection are the height of folly, and cannot be too severely condemned. Dr. Robinson, one of the secretaries of the National Commission, has very aptly stated: "The public must recognize that the police, the District Attorneys, the Court, the prison and reformatory institutions, probation and parole officers, are all parts of one great organization for the protection of society from crime.'

Often police departments do not pursue vigorously enough the obtaining of evidence to establish the guilt of offenders, and are too apt to rest content with the arrests of malefactors. Greater effort should be expended in the preparation of the case by the police than is generally the practice, especially in the obtaining of the necessary legal evidence. The tendency is to place too much dependence upon the prosecutor. In some cities this situation could be met by better coöperation between the police and the prosecuting officers. Energetic coöperation between the police departments and the District Attorney is of vital importance.

"The very heart of the criminal process," says Arthur V. Lashlay, one of the able contributors to the Missouri Crime Survey, "is the prosecuting office." The District Attorney is the counsel for the people of the State. He is the pivotal force be

tween crime detection and crime punishment. If this office is ill equipped either in number or capacity, to say nothing of integrity, disaster from the standpoint of public safety is inevitable. By reason of improper or inefficient legal management, a criminal case can fail before the Magistrate, the Grand Jury or the Petit Jury. The compensation provided for the prosecuting attorneys has been so small as to make it impracticable for lawyers of experience and ability to accept the office. No progress can be made toward improvement in the administration of justice until effective attention has been given to the better organization and equipment of the agencies of the police and the District Attorney, those indispensable legal outposts for social protection.

The immemorially cherished institution of trial by jury has been attacked severely by those critics who find in our administration of law the causes for the alleged crime increase. Nothing, it would seem to the writer, could be more unjustified than affirmative action on the drastic recommendation of jury abolition. An institution so highly prized by our fathers as to be classified among the most important provisions of our fundamental law, Federal and State, and frequently boasted of as "the bulwark of our liberties", could not be interfered with without dire results. At times there have been miscarriages of justice by reason of the action of juries. On the whole, however, trial by jury in America can be said to have stood the test of time as an institution making for the administration of justice to the satisfaction of a free people. Judges of experience in criminal cases know that on the whole substantial justice is done both to the people and to the defendant in trial by jury. There is, however, room for improvement in the jury system. Many citizens, often those who are too ready violently to condemn the shortcomings of government, are shamefully neglectful of their obligations of jury duty. The calibre of our juries would be immeasurably improved if some of our worthy citizens would serve upon them instead of evading this sacred responsibility. Judges and lawyers would welcome any measures tending to improve the jury system, but the lessons of history teach us that it is a safe and sound instrument of justice.

The trial of a defendant charged with serious crime should be

characterized by dignity, fairness and a calm pursuit of the truth, not only that substantial justice may be done, but that public confidence in our tribunals of law may be safeguarded. In recent years some of our most important criminal trials have become public spectacles. The press intrenches itself in the court-room en masse. The camera man, the special writer, the popular author, the prominent actress, a notorious divorcee, or almost any person in the popular eye, take upon themselves the responsibility of informing the public of their opinion on the guilt or innocence of the accused, and of the conduct of the case. A well known humorist recently related the story of the lady who was accused of shooting her husband. "Have you an attorney?" said the judge. "No," replied the fair defendant. "Who is to represent you?" said the Court. "The tabloid press," replied the gentle murderess.

Of course there can be no suggestion that the press should not publish the facts of criminal trials, but some effort ought to be made to discourage that ultra-sensationalism in newspaper writing that interferes seriously with the impartial weighing of the evidence as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant, and tends to arouse a morbid state in the public mind toward the crime and the criminal. This form of newspaper reporting is contrary to the public good. In many important trials, gruesome and salacious details have been so enlarged upon as to become nauseating to the right-minded. Frequently when a trial has resulted in a conviction, sensational newspaper publicity has aroused such a maudlin sympathy for the guilty individual as to be most disturbing to the orderly execution of the sentence. In the Chapman case, for example, after the conviction of this "robber and killer" was sustained by the Appellate Court of the State and the Supreme Court of the United States, the District Attorney was portrayed by a sensational illustrated newspaper almost in the light of a murderer.

On May 10, 1883, Joseph Pulitzer, who reestablished The World of New York City, stated the policy of that paper as follows: "An institution that should always fight for progress and reform, never tolerate injustice or corruption. . always remain devoted to the public welfare. . . never be afraid to attack

wrong." Most of our newspapers have lived up to this high ideal of public service, and a large number of our dailies are guided by high-minded policies entirely devoted to upholding justice and the law. But the fact cannot be ignored that the press in some instances has abused its great power, which unquestionably has tended to increase the gravity of the criminal problem.

The proponents of modern, sane and progressive methods of dealing with criminals hold no brief for the criminal and make no special plea for him. They are interested primarily in protecting life and property and in preserving peace and order, but they do not believe in undue and indiscriminating severity which has failed to suppress crime through all the ages, and which has at all times bred more crime than it has cured. Their purposes are constructive. They are not mere meddlers with the enforcement of the criminal law. Their aim is to understand the criminal and the causes underlying crime. They believe that there are all kinds of criminals just as there are all kinds of sinners who have not been apprehended, and that there is no inherent difference in mental and moral endowment of criminals as a class that makes it hopeless to undertake their reclamation.

Crime must be approached intelligently, scientifically and psychopathically, and not in the spirit of vengeance and stupid retaliation. The current theories of retribution and revenge must give place to organized study and treatment of individuals.

The careless and inaccurate use of the terms "probation", "suspended sentence", and "parole" has resulted in many instances in probation being unjustly criticized. These terms are not synonymous and cannot with accuracy be used interchangeably, for in the laws of New York State they have acquired specific meanings. Probation is the term used in connection with the conditional release of an offender without imprisonment but under the supervision of a probation officer, for a definite period of time, and for the purpose of reclaiming him from evil courses. Suspended sentence is the release of an offender without any supervision. Unless the offender is again arrested the court does not know whether its leniency has been abused or not. It should know! The use of the suspended sentence without probationary oversight is a pernicious practice that ought to be corrected.

Parole is the term used in connection with conditional release from a reformatory or penal institution after an offender has served a part of his original sentence.

The work of discrimination, investigation and reformative supervision of delinquents is largely carried on outside of the prison by the systems of probation and parole. These are modern methods of individual treatment which have shown good results wherever properly administered. Today there is danger of their coming under the general condemnation of any treatment that looks like leniency. Neither method properly administered means letting off the offender. They are in reality an extension of supervision and punishment. Probation is neither soft sentimentality nor an evasion of punishment. It is not a slack and loose procedure, but a well defined social case work plan of discipline and correction.

No less an authority than President Coolidge has stated that “Probation is the right hand in the administration of justice." In the Court of General Sessions of New York City, a complete study of the crime and the life of the criminal is in the hands of the judge before sentence. This pre-sentence study of the delinquent prior to judgment represents a marked step forward in the administration of criminal jurisprudence.

Preliminary or social investigations made by probation officers are not made to secure evidence as to the guilt or innocence of a person accused of crime. These investigations are made solely to obtain unbiased information which will assist judges to decide whether convicted adult offenders are suitable for probation treatment or should be committed to correctional institutions. When preliminary or social investigations are made, the judge has information, checked and verified, regarding the past criminal record of the offender, his personal and family history, his character, habits, associates, environment, his mental and physical condition, and the mitigating or aggravating circumstances of his offense.

It is an interesting fact to be noticed by those who are critics of probation on the ground that it "encourages" leniency, that in New York County, where probation is probably most highly developed and most completely administered, the rate of sus