TATOOING AS A PUNISHMENT FOR CRIMINALS.

Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 208, 2 September 1899, Page 3 (Supplement)

TATOOING AS A PUNISHMENT FOR CRIMINALS.

Is it not possible to devise a system of exposure such as would follow the criminal wherever he might go? says the author of "Crime and Criminals."

Suppose that for a first offence he were allowed to go free under suspension of sentence, and for a second offence he were tattooed witli a mark

indicating- the offence on an arm, and for a third offence on the back ot a Laud, and for a fourth on the "jack of i'ie other hand, and for a fifth across the forehead.

Oi-, if the first offence were an aggravated one, with no excuse, the tattooing might be on an exposed portion of the body to begin with. Such tattooing would render it ve-ry difficult for a. criminal to ply those arts of his trade which require some social intercourse with his victim.

Suppose the State should tattoo the lar," or murderer" on the hand or lar," or "murdere" on the hand or face of the ex-convict. Would not that be a punishment to be dreaded? Would it not be a protection to society by the warning it would give to everyone who should meet the marked, felon? Is there any social set' in which the unmarked would care to associate with the marked? Would not the criminal be effectually boycotted? It may be said that men so marked would never be able to obtain employment; that they would starve. But that need not be. Let the State employ them at road-m-aking. We need good roads more than we need prison cells or prison-made goods. Roadmakers would come into competition with oilier workmen less than do imprisoned convicts. Under such a system a method might be employed by which a thief could be compelled to repay his victim an amount equal to that'which he stole from him-, which cannot now be done, and the inability to do which is one of the defects of the present system. It is fair and right that the State which fails to protect the citizen should in some, manner compel the thief to reimburse his victim for his loss, or compel the assaulter to pay to the assaulted whatever damage the latter has sustained at the hands of the former, or compel the murderer to contribute something- towards tho support of the family of the slain. The first-time offender, if guilty of a slight offence, would have a chance to redeem himself by having his mark concealed by clothing, or by being allowed to go without a mark under suspension of sentence. The second or third, or fourth time offender would have difficulty in disposing of his stolen goods, if his crime was stealing, for the pawnbroker or other mirchaser could protect himself by looking for the mark.