The Press. FRIDAY, AUGUST 5, 1904. THE HABITUAL CRIMINAL.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 11954, 5 August 1904, Page 4

The Press. FRIDAY, AUGUST 5, 1904. THE HABITUAL CRIMINAL.

A noteworthy change in tho treatment of habitual criminals is proposed in the Penal Servitude Bill, which was lately read a eecond time in tho House of Commons. Ten years ago the problem of dealing with criminals of this typo, upon whom ordinary ecntenoes have no deterrent effect, was referred by Mr Asquith, then Home Secretary in the Rosebery Government, to a Departmental Committee, and the present Bill is based upon tho unanimous report of that Committee. Ita chief principle is that persons who made an occupation of crime, who are no sooner out of gaol than they return to their evil courses, and before long come again within the grasp of the law, should be detained in prison for lengthened periods. Under the present system, according to Mr AkersDouglas, the present Home Secretary, Judges are reluctant to inflict long sentences of penal servitude and hard labour, on account of the rigour and severity of the prison regulations under which such sentences are carried out. A criminal upon whom a Judge might, under other circumstances, pass a sentence of seven or ten years, now often escapes with three or five years, and is free at the end of that time to go back to his old ways, with the result that in one case out of a number quoted by the Home Secretary, a criminal had served eight sentences, five of them being of penal servitude, in twenty-nine years. If the new Bill passes into law Buch a record will become impossible, for the measure will confer upon Judges the power of imposing upon an habitual criminal, in addition to a sentence of penal servitude, detention under milder discipline for a term of years, during which he and those similarly circumstanced would be kept apart from the other prisoners, would wear a different dress, and would have opportunities of learning trades and earning some money, so that the temptation for them to return to lives of crimo would bo lessened. This treatment would be applied to a person who had been convicted at least three times previously, and who persistently led a dishonest or criminal life. Upon -such an offender a Judge might, under the existing system, pass a sentence of three years' penal servitude; by tho provisions of this Bill tho Court might, at discretion, sentence him to seven years or more, the first portion of the term being served under tho usual conditions of penal eervituele. and the remaining portion in the manner we have outlined above, which, to quote the Home Secretary, "would not " amount to much more than restraint-" Mr Akers-Douglaa pointed out that the Judge, in sentencing a man, would have to take into account, as now, his previous history and character. It was also mentioned—and the point is of some interest in New Zealand—that the Judges, in reporting almost unanimously in favour of tlie Bill, had expressed the opinion that the matters to be considered, if it came into operation, "should not be the subject "of proof by formal evidence or subject •'to crotss-examination," but that th*a Judge should continue to act aa at present in dealing with a prisoner's antecedents. The reforms contemplated by tho Bill also include the reparation of convicts into classses and the special treatment of each class. General approval was given to the proposed classification; bat several members urged that the House, or at least the Standing Committee on Law to whom

the Bill was referred, should have before it the rules regulating tho proposed special treatment. The criticism of the main principle was not very vigorous or telling. Some objection was taken to tha possibility /under the Bill, ac it stood, of persona who had been convicted several times of comparatively trifling offences, being sentenced or. a fourth conviction to penal servitude. But to take up such a position was to deny to his Majesty's judge* the possession of all common sense and desire to do justice. The starving woman with three convictions for stealing bread is not the "habitual criminal" at whom the Bill ia aimed. Tlie effect of the measure in reforming habitual criminals is, of course, at present only a matter of opinion, and some doubt was expressed by more than one speaker as to its value in this respect. It may at. least do good in this direction in the case of younger offender.*, and most people will agree, we think, that it is a step towards the more humane and effective treatment of habitual criminal*. It will certainly have the very useful effect of restraining their potentiality for evil, by preventing them for long priiods from corrupting younger and more innocent persons and by checking to some extent the perpetuation of a criminal race.