In most states the duties of the board are very grave and its business large.  With this has generally gone a law providing for the release of prisoners on parole before their sentences are finished.  In these cases the prisoner is paroled to someone who promises the board to employ him, and a monthly report is to be made of his conduct for a stated length of time.  He is then given conditional freedom, subject to the revocation of the parole by the board on the violation of its terms.

The administration of this power has made the parole board one of the most important, if not the most important, of any branch of the state government.  The lives and well-being of thousands of prisoners are absolutely dependent on this board.  Even more important are the happiness and well-being of the families of the inmates of the prison.  The power and responsibilities of this board are so great that only men of the best judgment and of humane and just tendencies should be trusted with the task.  It also calls for great courage such as few men on boards possess.  The public generally clamors for vengeance and unfairly and unjustly criticises the board, especially when a released man violates his parole or commits another crime.  This frequently happens.  Perhaps on an average ten per cent of those paroled are sent back to prison before their term expires.  All this makes it hard for the board to perform its duties, and makes the members of the board timid and doubtful of the result, often causing them to deny paroles in many cases where they should be given.

A great deal of criticism has been made of the parole system.  Public officials and that part of the crowd that is clamorous for vengeance are always ready to assail its activities unfairly and unduly.  Most professional criminals are against the parole board.  Speaking of the State of Illinois, I am sure that the parole law, instead of shortening the time of imprisonment, has lengthened the terms.  All lawyers in any way competent to handle the defense of a criminal case would, in the event of conviction, almost always get a shorter term for their clients from a jury or from the court, or even from the prosecutor, than from the parole board.  I feel strongly that the board is too timid and unwilling to grant paroles.  Still in spite of this there can be no doubt that the parole law is a step in the right direction, and it should be upheld by all who believe offenders should have a better chance.  If human nature in the administration of law could be relied on; if there were some method of getting men of courage and capacity with plenty of competent aid and assistance to take charge of paroles and prisons, then the ideal sentence should be one that fixed no time whatever.  It should simply leave a prisoner for study and observation until it was thought wise and safe to release him from restraint.  This like all the rest could not be done with the present public attitude toward criminals.  So long as men subscribe to the prevailing idea of crime and punishment, no officials could stand up against public opinion in the carrying out of a new and radical theory, and even if such a board should be established, the law under which it acted would soon be repealed or the members of the board forced to resign and a new one would take its place.