PRISONS BOARD.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 52, 2 March 1929, Page 19

PRISONS BOARD.

IS IT NECESSARY? REMISSIONS OF SENTENCE. RETRIAL OF OASES. "If Mount Etna were in this country, tiiere'd "be a Federal Board to control it." This is reported in a recent issue of the "Star" a.s having- appeared in the Ohio (U.SJL. "State Journal." But if it has become the American way to appoint commissions and boards for each and every purpose, is it at all necessary for New Zealand to follow on ? During the last few years we have watched the laws of this country added to in wholesale fashion by Order-in-Council and regulation, and the tendency oil the part of the Government to appoint boards and commissions to take over departmental duties is becoming very noticeaible. Doubtless, many of these boards are necessary, but if it were ever intended to cut the number down, a good start could be made by commencing with the Prisons Board. What good work can this body show to justify its existence? Sir Joseph Ward and Mr. Wilford should seriously consider this question before doing anything in regard to prison reform. The board consists of highly salaried men who consider the ease of every .prisoner in New Zealand, at least, once a year. They actually see the prisoner in person once a year, providing, in the case of men undergoing hard labour, that they have completed half of their sentence. Can the Prisons Board judge from the cursory inspection then given whether the prisoner should be recommended for release or not? One of tho members of the board is said to be a psychologist, but in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, he could not say that a -man should or should not be recommended for release just by looking at him 'for a few moments in the boardroom. There must be some other data to work on, and theoretically this should be consideration of: (1) The degree of good conduct and industry of the man concerned while in prison, and (2) any special reasons why his release on probation would particularly benefit him, without endangering the sense of security the public are entitled to feel in the possession of their corrective institutions.

Retrial of Cases. After judges and magistrates have tried cases and passed sentences (the sentence being often passed on the understanding that the Prisons Board is functioning in a certain way), it is the duty of the board to review prisoner's conduct and industry in gaol and any special circumstances. It is not its duty to try the case all over again. This has already been done by the proper authority appointed for the purpose. But to anyone who has any knowledge at all of the result attained by the board (not its workings, for these are far too subtle for the average mind), it is obvious that some cases are retried, and mental (and perhaps oral) criticism passed on the sentence. Now, if the board were functioning as it was intended it s-houl<? when it was first formed, should it not confine itself to the considerations above mentioned? Before the board came into existence, all prisoners could earn remission up to 25 per cent of their sentence by good conduct and industry. The Prisons Board did away with this, but surely it should not substitute a. harder scale. This, however. is imdoubtedly the case, for a prisoner now does not know where he stands. The board should go, to a great extent, on the report of the euperintendent of the prison as to a prisoner's conduct and industry, but it does not do so unless the report is against the prisoner.

Take tiif average- case of a prisoner whose conduct and industry lvave 'been good, and who has no special reasons pat forward for remission. Surely he should not 'be worse off than formerly, and should receive hie 25 per cent remission. Similarly, if he had good and sufficient special reasons in addition, he should receive extra remission, while if conduct and-or industry indifferent or bad ihe should receive less. But it is not done. Time after time there have been glaring examples of heavy remissions which seemingly could only be obtained by those of wealth or authority, while men who certainly deserved better treatment were passed over. Tt is not for the Prisons Board to sentence a man, or a class of men that appears before it. Earned Remissions. But who cares what the Prison Board does? Only those who do not know sufficient about the inside working of things to be able to help, and the poor unfortunates concerned. For unfortunate are the men who have by their conduct and honest labour earned their remission, who when hazed by nagging officers have clenched their teeth on words which might mean black marks, who have accepted poor food without spoken complaint for fear of being termed agitators, who have not complained at being set at tasks a man would not be expected to do outside, who have put up with all the pettiness and meanness of gaol life in the hope of a reward in good remission, only to be passed over in favour, perhaps, of a grouser, who shirked his work assiduously and whose conduct had not been of the best.

This sort of tiling happens so often that the board has proved its uselessness, its work a farce (though a tragi-c farce), the only possible point in its favour being that mention of it serves as a bludgeon to enforce discipline at all times, and therefore it must be a very popular institution with the Prisons Department. Formerly, if a man was not released on the completion of 73 per cent of his sentence, he would know that his reports were not good, whereupon, if his conscience was clear, he could see the superintendent and obtain an explanation. Now, that officer can say, "I am sorry for you; I put in a good report for you, but the Prisons Board have taken no notice of it." Thus is the superintendent left with too much power, the abuse of which cannot be detested by the prisoner, while the Prisons Board careers on its way, from prison to prison, leaving havoc behind it, letting out hard cases and keeping first offenders in till they become "hardboiled" too, and with no one to question them or to say them nay/ The board apparently pays no more attention to reformative treatment cases than it does to hard labour cases, so the last excuse for its existence is gone. In its course, it has left behind it men "Town sour and bitter with uncertainty and disappointment. If there must be a board, let guiding principles be laid down for it to follow, and a scale of marks for good conduct and industry be instituted, w-hich will mean that those obtaining over a certain percentage are sure of a certain amount of re- | fission, apart from the board altogether.