Vernier, C. G.

English

Northwestern University Illinois, School of Law: Scholarly Commons

Journal of Criminal Law and CriminologyVolume 6 | Issue 3 Article 91915Fourth Annual Meeting of the Illinois Branch of theInstituteC. G. VernierFollow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclcPart of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and CriminalJustice CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted forinclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons.Recommended CitationC. G. Vernier, Fourth Annual Meeting of the Illinois Branch of the Institute, 6 J. Am. Inst. Crim. L. & Criminology 426 (May 1915 toMarch 1916)THE FOURTH ANNUAL MEETING OF THEILLINOIS BRANCH OF THE INSTITUTE.C. G. VERNIER.The fourth annual meeting of the Illinois Branch was held atQuincy, June 10th and 11th, at approximately the same time as themeeting of the County Judges, States Attorneys, and the Bar Associa-tion. _ In spite of the fact that the meeting was held in a place farfrom the homes of most of the members, and difficult to reach, it wascharacterized by the best attendance and the deepest interest of anymeeting yet held. There were joint sessions with the States Attor-neys Association and the Bar Association, and to the co-operationof these organizations is due, in large part, the success we attained.One object which the state society has constantly kept before it,and which this meeting has greatly furthered,is to increase the interestof the members of.the bar, and to obtain a greater degree of co-opera-tion from the Bar Association. Until this is done, it may be franklyconfessed that the main work of the state organization will be mission-ary in nature, viz.: to maintain an organization for the enlistmentand training of workers and for the maintenance of an intelligententhusiasm for the betterment of the criminal law and its adminis-tration.Preceding" the first session there was an informal dinner, at sixP. M., Thursday, June 10th, at the Hotel Newcomb. The dinnerwas well attended, many State's Attorneys and County Judges beingpresent. The meeting was called to order by the President, theHon. George T. Page, of the Peoria Bar, who read the annual address,entitled, "The'Criminal, Why is He and What we do to Him."(This paper will be printed in a later number of this JOURNAL.)The second paper of the evening session was "A Brief Review ofthe Criminal Cases in the Supreme Court for the Past Year," byEdwin R. Keedy, Professor of Law, Northwestern University, Chicago.In the absence of Professor Keedy, the paper was read by C. G. Ver-nier, of Urbana, Secretary of the Illinois Branch. An annual reviewof the work of the Supreme Court in criminal matters has been afeature of the work of this Society for the past three years. Duringour first year, thirty criminal cases were decided, of which twentyTHE ILLINOIS BRANCHwere affirmed, and ten reversed. In the next year, thirty-six caseswere decided, the number of cases affirmed and reversed being equal.During the past year, thirty-five cases were decided, of which twenty-one were reversed. Hence, it appears that while the number of caseshas remained fairly constant, the percentage of reversals has increased.According to the Statistical Review of the work of the Supreme Courtfor 1900-1910 (which was reviewed by Justice Orrin N: Carter, at theannual meeting of the Illinois Branch in 1913) the percentage ofreversals for the decade reviewed was 42%. After discussing indetail the thirty-five cases decided during the past year, the writerconcluded that the unusually high percentage of reversals this pastyear furnished no basis for concluding that the Supreme Court hadbecome unduly inclined to set aside convictions. With a few rareexceptions, the decisions of the past year are supported by reason andauthority. The large number of reversals, however, shows a mis-carriage of justice in many instances, and that frequent errors of aserious character occurred in some of the trial courts. (This paperwill be published in full in the Illinois Law Review for November.)These two papers resulted in an interesting discussion whichlasted until 11:30 P. M. Some of those who engaged in the discussionwere 0. A. Harker, of Champaign, F. Emory Lyon, of Chicago, FredG. Wolf, of Quincy, Floyd E. Thompson, of Rock Island, J. L. Deck, ofDecatur, and Perry L. Persons, of Waukegan.Joint Session With The Bar Association.The next session on Friday evening, June 11th, was a jointsession with the Bar Association. In the absence of PresidentGeorge T. Page, of the Illinois Branch, Vice-President Robert H.Gault, of Evanston, presided. The program was furnished by theIllinois Branch. While the Bar Association has co-operated withthe Illinois Branch in the past, this marks the first time they have metin a joint session. The program for this session consisted of the follow-ing papers, "The Findings and Recommendations of the ChicagoCommittee on Crime," by Alderman Charles E. Merriam, of Chicago;"Psychological Tests and the Administration of Justice," by Dr.George Ordahl, State Psychologist, Lincoln, and "Is the Psychologistan Aid to the Court in the Administration of Justice?", by JudgeWilliam N. Gemmill, of Chicago. (Professor Merriam's paper maybe found elsewhere in the present number of this JouRNAL.)Dr. Ordahl's paper consisted of a discussion of the function ofpsychological tests in the adminstration of justice. He explainedthe Binet-Simon tests and their use in the public schools, institutionsfor the feeble-minded, juvenile courts, reformatories, and other428 C. G. VERNIERpenal institutions. The body of the paper consisted of a summary ofthe results obtained by the application of the Faribault and Stanfordrevisions of these tests to 53 inmates of the Joliet State Penitentiaryand 250 cases from the St. Charles School for Boys. Many of themain criticisms made of these tests, especially their application toadults were considered. Summarizing, the writer claimed: (1) Therevision of the Binet-Simon scale is fairly accurate in detectingfeeble-mindedness among juveniles especially. (2) The tests arevaluable in determining the intellectual capacity and in prescribingtreatment and care of prisoners. (3) The opinion of the psychologistis vajuable in determining fitness for parole. (4) There is need ofinvestigation to determine the frequency of crime among morons.(5) Adequate psychological criminal clinics established in connectionwith the public schQols would do much toward preventing boys frombecomifig delinquents and recidivists. (6) Psychology will, if ade-quately supported, soon furnish adequate and reliable means forexamining and grading criminals.In concluding, the writer said: "aside from the detection offeeble-mindedness, it is not claimed that the system of tests herepresented has accurate scientific value, but it is clearly evidentthat they are valuable for classifying inmates of the prisons, fixingsentence, and in suggesting such training for a portion of the in-dividuals sentenced as shall prevent their becoming recidivists."The newness of the science would hardly justify society inexpecting perfect or adequate application in so grave a questionas the liberty and life of a human being. It may, indeed, even toleratea mild degree of pretension, and yet there is nothing to be gained inpretensions to what the science cannot justly maintain. On theother hand, society may lose much if the science is not given adequatesupport and opportunity to develop."What is just now needed most of all is a psychologic institutein connection with reformatories, penitentiaries, and prisons through-out the whole country. They should be manned by experts, withfull freedom to experiment. A few years of such work, it seemsalmost certain, would bring results valuable to every phase of theadministration of justice."This paper has aimed to deal exclusively with the functionpsychology may have in the administration of justice. In so doing,conclusions have been based exclusively on the laboratory tests.Data obtainable from other sciences has been excluded. Clearly,however, psychology can render its best service when given theaid of workers in other departments, such as the sociological field-worker, the physician, the neurologist, and alienist."THE ILLINOIS BRANCH 429Judge Gemmill, writing as chairman of the Committee onDefective Delinquents, but expressing only his individual opinion,criticized existing psychological tests as means for determiningwho are defectives. "Any claims, he said," which draw but faintartificial lines between so-called normal boys and men and ten thousandother boys and men with varying degrees of intelligence above orbelow them can be of no value in the study of criminology. Toattempt a classification of persons who are both mentally and morallyresponsible for their acts and who differ from each other only ineducation or training not only confuses the whole subject, but in somedegree offers an inducement for wrong-doing, through a reliance upona plea of moral irresponsibility to escape the penalties of the law.For these reasons the term defective delinquent should be used inthe most restricted sense, and should refer only to that body of de-linquents whose mental equipment is either so low that they are unableto protect themselves against physical dangers, or who are unableto distinguish between what we generally call right and what nearlyall reasonable persons know to be wrong."Judge Gemmill believes that a psychopathic laboratory may be avaluable adjunct to a criminal court, but that it must resort to awider range of information than that afforded by our present psycho-logical tests alone.The discussion which followed the reading of the foregoing paperswas spirited, and held the close attention of a large audience until11:30 P. M.On March 30, 1915, occurred the death of Professor Charles Rich-mond Henderson, Vice-President of this Society, and one of its mostactive and enthusiastic workers. On motion of Nathan William MacChesney, a resolution was passed providing for the appointment of acommittee to draft a memorial to Dr. Henderson, and to provide forsuitable publication thereof.The Society adjourned after a brief talk by the newly electedpresident, Judge Albert C. Barnes, of Chicago.A brief business session was held Friday morning at whichvarious matters were discussed. The following resolution wasadopted:Resolved: That we approve the principle involved in theUnemployment Bill (Senate Bill No. 24), and that the Secretary bedirected to communicate this fact to Governor Dunne and to theChairman of the committee of the Senate in charge of the bill, with anexpression of our earnest hope that the bill, or one similar in principal,be adopted and signed by the Governor.43U C. G. VERNIERThe business session closed with the election of officers for theensuing year, a list of whom follows:OFFICERS FOR 1915-16.President:Judge ALBERT C. BARNES, Appellate Court, Chicago.Vice-Presidents:ROBERT H. GAULT, Editor Journal of Criminal Law and Crim-inology, Northwestern University, Evanston.STEPHEN S. GREGORY, of the Chicago Bar.Secretary:C. G. VERNIER, Professor of Law, University of Illinois, Urbana.Treasurer:W. G. HALE, Professor of Law, University of Illinois, Urbana.Executive Council:0. A. HARKER, Chairman, Dean of the College of Law, Universityof Illinois, Champaign.WILLIAM N. GEmmiLL, Judge Municipal Court, Chicago.DAN.EL P. TRUDE, of the Chicago Bar.H. C. STEVENS, Director of the Psychopathic Laboratory,University of Chicago.EDMUND M. ALLEN, Warden State Penitenflary, Joliet.

Fourth Annual Meeting of the Illinois Branch of the Institute

bepress Legal Repository

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1379&amp;context=jclc

Fourth Annual Meeting of the Illinois Branch of the Institute

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Northwestern University Illinois, School of Law: Scholarly Commons

bepress Legal Repository