In connection with the movement! uaong the Magistracy of New Zealand to , ;ake Borne steps to suppress juvenile crime • md the importance they a'ttaoh to the one ' }f the blrah as ■ deterrent, • debate which took place In the Hoase of Oomdqodb feoently on thesubjaot of corporal punishment of criminals has the greater Interest for an. The dhousaion atoae on a bill to consolidate the law relating to oorporal punishment, previously contained mno less that nine sUtates. The following were sonao of the speakers and arguments against the use of corporal punlshm9ni at all. Me Bradlaugh wan opposed to all kinds of bt utallslDg punishments—Mr J. Bright believed that ihla punishment bruttlised the persons who reoeived it, the persons who inflated It, aad the sool»ty upon whom It was toflioted. — Mr 0. Graham did not believe th&t severity ever acted as a deterrent to crime Whea he was In Texas persons who were charged with hoise stealing, when arrested, which was nearly always the case, were generally . hanged npoo the nearest tree, and he had assisted In several of those entertainments. That, however, did not appear to have the effect of diminishing the crime of horse stealing. — Mr Osborne Morgan pointed ont that the result of the abolition of flogging In the Army and Navy In 1879 had resulted In a great diminution of crime, and to extend the application of the punishment would not have the effect desired.— Mr Matthews [Home Secretary) said It did not follow that because flogging proved to be a deterrent to crime that afforded an ample justification for flagging. As far as bis experience wont, he oonld not for an Instant doubt that the punishment by flogging did prevent crime. No prudent L?g'»lature would, however, select a deterrent punishment that was not In accordance with publlo feeling. The question arose as to whether flogging wsb too severe, too brutallsiog, and too barbarous for the publio opinion of the day Dt Hunter denouooed the Bill as disgraceful'y retrograde. Flogging bad never yet done any good.— Mr Shaw-Lefevie said one of the greatest arguments against flogging was that it had be«,n deliberately abandoned by every country In Jffiurope, .after the experience of ages. Flogging did not aot as a deterrent, while it bratalised still more the brutes who committed orimee of this kind, and brutallsed those who had to administer the punishment,—Mr Piokersglll argued m view of the crimes of violence of whloh women were guilty, that if tbla Bill were passed the House could not logically stop till it revived the practice of whipping women. —The Solloltor-Genernl eald no one hafl ever "UCOBeded In proving that In* any alass of offerees the par hf imeut of flogging had. had a deterrent effect. He did hot deny that crime we a very prevalent, but he oon tended that it should be met by Inoreased certainty of detection, the Imposition of known and equal punishments, and by ja»kiog the oonduot of orimlnal osbfb * little more ■- fair to persons unjustly •oonsed— Sir G. Russell advooated the ltifl otion of oocporal punishment for burglary and other offences,' because he believed It would prove a great deterrent to crime. He hoped that the Government would have the plaok end courage to support a 8 11, whloh would have the t ffaot of diminishing crime. Mr Atkloson, as a magistrate of 30 years' standing, contended; ih»t the. result of his experlenoa showed that orime would be prevented by this BUI, -and that the Bill was called for. . liUtle more was said In favor of corporal punishment, but ■ the House passed the saoond re<»d<n> by 194 to 126.
Permanent link to this item
CORPORAL PUNISHMENT, Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 2172, 13 July 1889
CORPORAL PUNISHMENT Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 2172, 13 July 1889
Using This Item
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.