PROBATION SYSTEMS.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 134, 8 June 1929, Page 17

PROBATION SYSTEMS.

N.Z. AND ELSEWHERE.

AN ENGLISH SURVEY.

(By J. J. SULLIVAN.)

The publication by T. W. Trought, 8.A., J.P., president of the National Association of Probation Officers in England, of "Probation in Europe" (Basil, Blackwell, Oxford) will stimulate interest in systems of probation in different parts of the civilised world. Mr. Trought has collected in an interesting book of 245 pages, well indexed and documented, an outline of the probation systems of Europe, and has added in part 2 of the volume certain conclusions reached from the report of the systems of the various countries, the statement on juvenile courts being illuminating. Probation as a means of reformation' and prevention of crime has long since been acknowledged. In a conservative age—a time difficult of legal reform — New Zealand placed on its statute Book the First Offenders Act—the first of the kind brought into operation in the British Empire. New Zealand, and particularly Auckland, should feel a pride in the fact that this bill was introduced and passed into law through the instrumentality of the late Hon. J. A. Tole, K.C., Auckland, then Minister of Justice. That was 43 years ago. The bill received general support ,irom all sides of the House. The introduction of this bill into the House was acknowledgca by Mr. Tole to be the result of the visit to New Zealand of Mr. Howard Vincent. He informed Mr. Tole that he had been in other colonies, and suggested the matter to the Governments there. With these Governments Mr. Tole communicated, and was informed that they did not intend to take action at the time in the matter. Consequently New Zealand led the way. The system has long since passed the experimental stage and has now taken a permanent place in our judicial system. The underlying idea is the value of the influence which a probation officer —a man or woman of strong personality —may exercise over one of weaker or immature character, who, owing to lack of discipline, bad associations or other circumstances, has been led to commit offences and is liable to fall into or persist in criminal habits. Nice Discrimination. It is readily conceded that harm is done by releasing some offender on probation to whom the Act is not intended to apply. There is, therefore, a nice discrimination, quite apart from the statute, as to when judges or magistrates should apply probation, and this to a great extent depends not merely upon the crime itself as may be seen in the records of our Courts, but on the recommendation of the probation officers. Mr. Trought, in his very valuable book, in giving us various systems of probation in the different countries of Europe, reproduces for us, virtually, the laws relating thereto and gives in the case of individual States valuable supplementary information. It is interesting to note, further, in Mr. Trought's book that it is mandatory in England in the appoint-

ment of probation officers that no official of the Court shall act as a probation officer, neither shall a police officer, school attendances officer, relieving officer, or justice's clerk act in such capacity. An important point for us, arising out of Mr. Trought's investigations, is to consider how far we may benefit, after reading his valuable work, from the review of the system in other countries. It is true that in New Zealand habitual criminals, after serving the fixed sentence of the Court for a particular crime with which they are charged, are placed on probation to a certain extent corresponding somewhat to the old ticket of leave formerly operating in England. Consideration of this gives rise to the very interesting question as to who is to fix the period that an habitual criminal shall serve in prison after serving the sentence fixed by the Court in the first instance. If it is necessary that under our probation system, probation should be given to delinquents in order to save them from becoming hardened criminals, then it is equally necessary to extend the probation system to unfortunate men who are branded as habitual criminals after they have served a sentence that a Court of Justice has imposed upon them and within a reasonable time after such sentence has been served. Sir. Trought's work must stimulate interest in New Zealand in not only our probation system, but in the punishment meted out to unfortunate men and women who come before our courts. There are many cases in New Zealand that cause thoughtful men and women to pause and ask how it is that one prisoner, for a trifling offence on the first occasion, will receive a term of imprisonment, the amount involved ill the theft being a matter of practically a few shillings, whereas in cases of theft involving hundreds of pounds, probation has been extended in some courts. Fines. Mr. Trought's book contains many useful suggestions that lead to questions of various kinds and naturally prompts an observation on the incidence of fines. To impose a fine of £1 for some breach of a regulation on a working man in driving a motor vehicle and to impose the same penalty upon a wealthy motor car owner for a similar breach surely is an injustice in itself. True, all men are equal before the law, but if it is n question of punishment to be inflicted on a wealthy man for an offence for which the same punishment is imposed on a poor man, it surely strikes Miy thinker that there is something wrong in the system that allows a discretion to a judge or magistrate, and yet the condition of the parties in their actual life is not taken into consideration.

Mr. Trought, in bringing into one volume the probation system of not only England and Wales, but countries as far apart as Kussia, Sweden, Poland and the Irish Free State, Finland, Bulgaria, Belgium and other countries, renders a valuable service to judges, magistrates, lawyers and all citizens interested in the administration of criminal justice in New Zealand as well, of course, as in other parts of the Empire.