FLOGGING.

Auckland Star, Volume LXX, Issue 29, 4 February 1939, Page 18

FLOGGING.

Corporal punishment. is \ commonly justified • on the ground thati it deters; the individual from offending It is also supposed to deter othei-s'. ; May: we draw attention to this (Quotation from the London-"Times," whA/-h supplies an effective answer" to huc.li contentions:—"Moving, the second leading of the Criminal Justice-Bill, : Sir Snmuel Hoare, Home-Secretary, said, alia, that he was proposing tlie abolition of corporal punishment' for two reasons — rit was out of date, and it did not de-fcor the particular individual from' off l ending again, or - protect society from -.simil.av crimes in the future. These. were nott groundless sentiments. They' wcre\ founded on the great body.' of. evidence collected by fthe Conimittee; (oh, Cor.poral Punishment).' Tliat'' "impartial committee came unanimously to tlie : conclusion that the time .had. arrived' for abolition. .The evidence . did not prove that it did'any-good to the convict or that it lessened'the number of similar offeiices in the' futur.e.-' The claiiu . that, tlie infliction .of corporal punishment had diminished or brought -to an end certain types" of crime was not borne out by the evidence." And he went on to say that it was found that after the passing of the Garotters Act- authorising flogging, robbery with violence actually increased; and so it <<-!?• flo So in gs were inflicted on the High Rip" gang in Liverpool. Flo<*short, is not necessary, nor the effective deterrent that- some suppose" it. I Why do we retain it in Xew Zealand?

HOWARD LEAGUE FOR PENAL REFORM.