Jasper County Democrat, Volume 19, Number 50, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 20 September 1916 — FAMILIES OF CONVICTS [ARTICLE]

FAMILIES OF CONVICTS

The paroling on September 12 of 'four state prisoners, whose families had been left in need and were reduced, by the absence of the prisoners. to poverty, is merely one of many similar instances that call attention to the fate of the families of i convicts in general, it is true that the men who are sent to prison are the least able to leave their families without support. This does not mean that because they are poor they are likely to be dishonest. It merely means that as a rule the same qualities which are lacking in the man who can not support Iris family are likely to be lacking in the man who can not comprehend the consequences of law violation with sufficient intelligence to resist the temptation. And in many Cases convicts have greatly reduced their resources in defending themselves against the charge brought against them by the state. In any case it is an unequal battle, but necessary as a penalty for violating the law.

But all convicts can not be released simply because there is a dependent family at home. The dependent family is to be pitied. Often it is the victim, not of the prison system, but of the thoughtlessness and wilfull dishonesty of its supporting member. And in many cases no blame whatever attaches to the family. It must either solve its poverty problem by disbanding, or wait till the prisoner has served his sentence, received his sls in cash, his $6 “durable „ suit of clothes,” and (if he is released between November 1 and April 1) his $5 overcoat, which, under the law, the state allows him, in addition to his transportation home. Thus provided for, the convict returns, and if the family has kept abreast of expenses the allowance should be enough to enable him to make a start. But if, as in many cases, the family has gone deeply in debt on the promise of payment as soon as he is released and again becomes a wage earner, he faces a very discouraging state of affairs. Some states have attempted to provide for the dependent families of convicts in various ways. Last year Pennsylvania passed a law providing for pay to convicts at the rate of fr r ’<* ♦« 50 cents a day for labor per oi „d. Three-fourths of

t hese earnings, or more at the pris-! oner’s option, constitute a fund for I the dependents of the prisoner. Jail | prisoners, including those awaiting j t rial, may work on the highways for ] 25 cents a day. North Dakota adopted a similar plan last year. Other , states have found it to be satisfactory. And there can he no doubt • that the convict whose mind is liarassed by thoughts of a dependent family at home favors the plan. That these convicts are willing to Work is shown by the figures on the earnings of paroled prisoners in Indiana between 1897 and 1915, as quoted by Amos \V. Butler, in his paper read before the American Prison association last year at its meeting at Oakland, California. He said that during this time the earnings of paroled Indiana prisoners were $2.5:50,199.40. and that the average 1 saving was $50.30. But within prison walls in Indiana the opportunities "to earn money for the support of dependent relatives are very limited, and the state has adopted no uniform plan of compensation.—lndianapolis News.