CRUEL PENALTY.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVIII, Issue 150, 26 June 1937, Page 11

CRUEL PENALTY.

INQUIRY DEMANDED.

! FEROCIOUS SENTENCE. \ i PRISONER RAN "AMOK." ! i (From Our Own Correspondent.) SYDNEY, June 18. j A few days ago a prisoner in Parra- : matta gaol who was doing a 12 years': sentence —of which eight years have expired—suddenly ran amok in the tailors' shop. He attacked the overseer j and then, seizing a hammer, destroyed two buttonhole machines and nine sew-! ing machines, valued collectively at! nearly £<00. He then seems to have' submitted quietly and was led away to his, cell. Later two magistrates called on their usual visit to the gaol and proceeded to; inquire into the disturbance. Their investigations were secret, and the prisoner was not tried in the ordinary! acceptation of the term. He was charged with refusing to obey the overseer, assaulting the overseer, and causing wilful and malicious damage to Govern-j ment property. Three Counts. j On these three counts the magistrate 1 sentenced him to seven days "in cells," one month's "close confinement." and six months "'separate confinement." This, apparently means—as interpreted by several newspapers—that "for a' week he will be kept locked in his cell, on bread and water; that for the ing two months he should be in solitary; confinement with only bread and water' eich alternate week"; and that for a further six months he should have ordinary diet, but would be segregated from the other prisoners, and that at exercise time he would walk up and down the yard alone." The publication of these particulars has produced an outburst of strong condemnation from a considerable section of the general public. The "Daily Telegraph" protests that such punishment

"converts our prisons into chambers of horror and the very provision for such inflictions is a reflection upon our state of civilisation."

Appeal to Minister. "Truth" denounces the "cruelty and I ferocity"' of this penalty—which it do-' scribes as more savage than the offence, that the prisoner committed, and, like 'the "Telegraph." it urges the Minister of i Justice to remit at least some portion iof those barbarous penalties. I Of course such punishments are wholly incompatible with the principle stoutly maintained by modern criminologist?,! that judicial penalties must never be | vindictive. It is difficult to conceive jhow a prisoner subjected to such treat - : ment - could avoid being degraded and brutalised by it. rather than "reformed."" It may lie admitted that the prisoner lin question —his name has been carefully i suppressed—is not. on bis record, deserving of much sympathy. When he | was sentenced eight years ago by Judge Curlcwis it was stated in court that 'nearly 400 offences had been traced to him. They consisted chiefly of assault, assault and robbery, safe-blowing and burglary, and it was alleged by the police that he always carried a loaded revolver. On various charges he was sentenced |to 23 years' imprisonment; but a* some of the sentences were concurrent, he actually received a full term of 12 years. subject to remission for good conduct. When he was convicted he wrote a long confession of his misdeeds, professing that he wished to "make a clean istart*' when he ultimately came out of igaol. He kept his word, at least well enough to earn remissions amounting to more than IS months, thus leaving : himself only a little over two years to complete his term. I The fact that he had earned the full remission which the regulations permit proves that hi* conduct in gaol had been texemplary, and that he had made some attempt to carry out his promise of reform. I'nder the circumstances it is not difficult to interpret his misconduct as a suddenly irrepre— ible outburst of resentment at his l<mg incarceration. Although it obviously demanded punishment. m<«-t people wili agree with the "Telegraph" > and "Truth"' thai the penalty \xa- fero- • cious and cruel, and that tlie Mini-ter l for Justice should find vino nay of - securing for this unfortunate creature t alleviation and redress.