Summary

Various The Review, Vol. 1, No. 8, August 1911 (1913)

Now if it is wasteful and undesirable to employ two or more probation officers to serve in a territory where one could do the work, and if it is wasteful and undesirable to employ two or more parole officers to serve in a territory where one could do the work, why should we employ in a given area one probation officer to supervise persons on probation, and one or more parole officers to perform practically the same kind of work with respect to persons on parole, provided the work of all these officers could be done equally well by only one officer?
Source: Gutenberg

Various The Review, Vol. 1, No. 8, August 1911 (1913)

Had it not been for reforms inside the prisons it would have been impossible to successfully apply the parole and probation systems in the State. A writer in the World’s Work says, “With the last ten years greater advances in the reform of prison administration have been made throughout civilization than during all the previous centuries that man has been forcibly sequestering his lawless brother from society,” and he declares that the United States has led the world in these reforms, and that New York has led the other forty-seven States.
Source: Gutenberg

Various The Review, Vol. 1, No. 8, August 1911 (1913)

Turning next to the organization of the parole system, I ask your judgment as to whether these five principles should not hold equally with respect to the organization of parole officers.
In the first place, we will undoubtedly agree that parole officers like probation officers, should be selected with special reference to their personal fitness for the work. They should have a social sense, and be bent not on spying or intimidating, but on helping. For the same reasons that the dilletante and the policeman fail in probation work, such persons will fail in parole work.
Source: Gutenberg

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature